David Taylor: The Burton-upon-Trent to Leicester route, including the third oldest rail line in England, runs through the heart of the national forest, crosses three counties, links two regions and serves Ashby-de-la-Zouch and Coalville in my constituency. Since Beeching killed off passenger services, our area has been transformed economically, socially and environmentally and there is huge support for the return of passenger rail services. Can the Minister indicate how a local community can proceed in the light of the fact that the county council's support has cooled dramatically since political control changed in 2001? Perhaps he could include me in the consultation on the successor franchise to which he has referred.

Peter Bone: Midland Mainline, which runs through Leicestershire, also runs through Wellingborough. Is the Minister aware of the concern that it has put back the time the last train returns from London? It now leaves at 11.15 pm, which makes it difficult for people to come to London, for example, to see a show and get back to Wellingborough or Leicestershire. Can he use his good offices to encourage Midland Mainline to change its view?

John Redwood: Will the Minister ensure when cross-examining those regional bodies that they have come forward with projects that can tackle, at least cost and in the best way, the underlying problem of shortage of capacity of all kinds in our transport system? I would rather she were consulting elected local government but, given that she is going to do it in that way, will she ensure that those bodies are asked the right questions and come forward with bottleneck-reducing schemes, particularly ones that can be privately financed?

Stephen Hepburn: My hon. Friend will know that the metro makes up a substantial part of the transport system in Tyne and Wear and is used by thousands of pensioners. While I welcome the news of extra finance, there will still be a substantial deficit in Tyne and Wear after the provision of free travel for pensioners. Can she review that decision?

Karen Buck: I am conscious of the representations that Nexus has made on that issue. The £350 million provided by the Chancellor is to fund free off-peak bus travel and it is a generous boost to bus travel. It is up to local authorities to make the decision to make any additional provision for other transport modes or to extend the scheme in other ways. I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. Friend any assurance in the short term that there will be any extension of the scheme.

Jeff Ennis: Is my hon. Friend aware that First South Yorkshire has implemented fare increases of more than 30 per cent. in the past year, leaving south Yorkshire with some of the highest fares in the country? The South Yorkshire passenger transport executive has now informed us that First South Yorkshire is not willing to sign up to the previously agreed deal to fund the concessionary travel scheme. What advice can my hon. Friend offer to the South Yorkshire passenger transport executive to correct that unsatisfactory situation?

Karen Buck: I am aware that in these processes some robust negotiation usually takes place between the bus companies and the local authorities about the concessions. The Government are funding bus services overall by almost £1 billion and providing an additional boost of £350 million. Inevitably, service levels across the country will vary, but I hope that that investment will be welcomed on both sides of the House as a major step forward in providing concessionary transport to an important and vulnerable constituency.

Patrick McLoughlin: In constituencies like mine, community transport run by charities—such as those in Bakewell and Eyam, Ashbourne and Amber Valley—provides a valuable and essential service for older people. What arrangements are being made for those services to benefit from the scheme?

Karen Buck: It is for local authorities to decide, according to their resources, whether to invest in other forms of transport, be that community transport schemes or token schemes, which can be more applicable to rural areas. Some local authorities, such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Jeff Ennis), already fund the concessionary scheme above the present level. Local authorities across the country are taking decisions to meet the needs of the local communities in different ways, and they will have to decide how to use the money that was announced by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government yesterday.

Nick Brown: It appears to be the case that insufficient funds have been allocated to district authorities in the county of Tyne and Wear and, therefore, to Nexus to cover even the off-peak concessionary pensioners bus fare. If that turns out to be the case, what action will my hon. Friend take to remedy the situation?

Karen Buck: I do not accept that the sum available will create that shortfall. The £350 million that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced is more than sufficient to ensure that full off-peak services are available across the whole country. It is always inevitable in the development of any formula that there is a risk that not every authority will be satisfied. We consulted with the Local Government Association about the formula and amended it to weight it more heavily towards the uptake of concessionary transport, and in so doing we went a long way to meet the concerns of Nexus, which we appreciate has a particular problem.

Martin Horwood: I thank the Minister for his reply, but I find it slightly curious. Given that nearly 20 per cent. of households in Gloucestershire have no car and given the decline in walking and cycling, which I am sure he would agree is damaging for our health and our environment, would he not agree with my constituent Jonathon Porritt, the chair of the Sustainable Development Commission, when he says that
	"new railway stations must be accessible by foot and bike and should not encourage unnecessary car use",
	and that therefore any diversion of services away from existing town stations such as Cheltenham Spa to new stations outside towns would be harmful to our health and our environment?

Mark Lazarowicz: Is not one of the problems the growth in the domestic air travel in the UK for journeys that could be done much better and more appropriately by rail? Can my right hon. Friend think of some innovative ways to achieve such a modal shift—for example, by increasing airline passenger duty for domestic mainland flights in the UK and using the revenues raised to fund high-speed lines to cut journey times and make rail more attractive?

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend is right to suggest that we should encourage people to use the most environmentally efficient way to travel if we can. Let me give an example that is a bit further away from the city that both of us represent. Now that the west coast main line has been upgraded at a cost of £7.5 billion, the journey time on the train service between Manchester and London is just over two hours, and it is extremely efficient and probably a better way to get to London than going out to the airport and flying down. So that is a very good example.
	As I have told the House before, the Chancellor and I have asked Sir Rod Eddington to look at some of the longer-term transport developments that we need in this country, one of which will be whether or not we should invest money in a high-speed rail link that runs from the north to the south. However, I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that we ought to encourage people to travel in a way that causes the least possible damage to the environment, although I draw his attention to the fact that any form of transport—high-speed rail links included—has an environmental consequence. High-speed railway lines draw a substantial amount of energy when people are travelling on them.

Alistair Darling: As the hon. Gentleman perfectly well knows, the taxation of aviation fuel is governed by international treaty and it is not open to any country to take unilateral action in that respect. I am sure that he will have noticed that last week, because of pressure brought to bear by the UK Government, the European Union has now signed up to including aviation in a EU-wide emissions trading scheme, which will go a long way to reduce emission. As I said just a few moments ago, the White Paper on aviation, which we published a couple of years ago, not only sought to strike a balance to ensure that people could fly to different parts of the country and the world, but was very conscious of our environmental obligations. The problem with the Liberal Democrats is that they are in favour of people flying, but they are against the means to enable them to do so.

Jim Sheridan: Having spoken recently to the senior management at Glasgow airport, I know that they are extremely happy with the proposals in the White Paper on airport expansion. However, they are concerned about access to Glasgow airport, especially due to congestion on the M8 and the situation regarding the Glasgow airport rail link, responsibility for which is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with Scottish Executive to try to move those things forward?

Alistair Darling: I agree with my hon. Friend. Under the new franchise that has been awarded to GNER, there will be something like 65 services from Leeds to London each weekday, which is approximately one every half hour. Additionally, GNER is committed to working with the Department and Network Rail to examine electrifying the line between Leeds and the east coast. There have been improvements at Grantham to cut down the number of delays of trains coming from Skegness and the east coast. King's Cross station is due to be developed further to allow for greater capacity, and much further north, the Scottish Executive plan to enlarge Edinburgh Waverley station. On top of that, I except that further improvements will be made to ensure that the line, which is one of the main arterial railway routes in the country, can carry more and more passengers.

Alistair Darling: I am very impressed by my colleague's new-found enthusiasm for competition on the railways, as it has not always been evident. Hull Trains is the only example of an open access operator running services between Hull and King's Cross. That service is extremely popular, and when we published our White Paper on rail development we said that we hoped that it would continue. However, it should be borne in mind that GNER will pay a great deal of money to the Department, which will thus be available for investment in the railways. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright), we would have to pay regard to the impact of any new operator on the amount of money coming into the railways. The railways need to be operated as a whole, and, if new services start to operate, we must look at the implications for other services before reaching further conclusions as to whether anyone else should enter the network.

Alistair Carmichael: May I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) about the importance of a proper national strategy for the development of trans-shipment hubs? I declare a constituency interest, as there is advancing project at Scapa Flow in Orkney, which I commend to the Minister. As there is a clear overlap between devolved and reserved responsibilities, will he work closely with Scottish Executive Ministers to ensure that we achieve a strategy that is right not just for the United Kingdom but for the whole of northern Europe?

Stephen Ladyman: I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's points. The consultation will have to be national and we will need to involve the devolved Assemblies in the consideration. We must look at all the issues in as open a way as possible. The economic impact of the operation of our ports is unquestionable. We must maximise it and at the same time take account of the environmental and social issues.

Alistair Darling: The right hon. Gentleman is correct in that ships burn particularly heavy fuels, which account for substantial emissions. However, there are many fewer ships than other forms of transport, which reduces the scale of their contribution. Another complication is whatever we do must comply with our international obligations, which, as I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will recall, are complex. I am not unsympathetic to his point, but I cannot promise him anything immediately.

Chris Bryant: To return to ecclesiastical livings—not that I have any intention of doing so myself—is it not a bit of a 19th-century anachronism still to have a politician involved in the appointment of people to livings? In fact, it is not even 19th-century, but 17th-century or 16th-century. We might even end up with a Roman Catholic or an atheist naming people to Church of England livings. Would not that be a little curious? Is not this a load of old Trollope that we should put an end to?

Vincent Cable: I welcome the Government's commitment to cut the number of inspection agencies from 31 to seven—11 to four in the public sector. However, can the Minister answer this question, which Philip Hampton posed but never got an answer to: how many forms are circulating in public sector agencies which private individuals and companies have to fill in?

Jim Murphy: I thank the hon. Gentleman for asking the most helpful question so far. He is right to talk about the reduction in the number of inspectors and regulators that the Government are determined to achieve. The reason why no answer can be given by Mr. Hampton and others is that no one in Government has known in the past or knows today. That is why we launched the administrative burden inquiry that is continuing to identify the level of bureaucratic burden across Government. Once we have done that, we will set ambitious targets for annual reductions. We will have more to report on that in due course.

Stephen Timms: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on benefits uprating in the context of the Government's continued fight against poverty and our ambitious programme to renew the welfare and pensions systems.
	I shall place full details of the uprating in the Vote Office and arrange for the figures to be published in the Official Report. I can confirm that most national insurance benefits will rise by the retail prices index, which is 2.7 per cent., and that most income-related benefits will be uprated by Rossi, at 2.2 per cent.
	From next April, retirement pension will go up by £2.20 a week for single pensioners and by £3.55 a week for couples. When we were elected, the pension was just £62.45 for a single person. From April, it will be £84.25 for a single person and £134.75 for couples. That is a real-terms rise of 8 per cent. since 1997. Next year, the guarantee credit of pension credit will rise in line with earnings, so that no single pensioner need live on less than £114.05 a week and no couple on less than £174.05 a week. The threshold for the savings element of pension credit will be uprated so that it remains equal to the basic state pension. That means that a typical single pensioner will now gain from pension credit with an income of up to £158.75 a week, while a typical couple will gain on income of up to £233 a week.
	Nearly 3.3 million pensioners are now in receipt of pension credit, with an average weekly award of around £43. We are reaching more people and ensuring that they get their entitlements. Following the introduction of pension credit, about 2 million pensioner households now qualify for more help, or qualify for help for the first time, with their council tax or rent. From this week, pensioners can make a single phone call to claim all three: pension credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit. That will be a very welcome simplification.
	By targeting resources at the least well-off pensioners, we have succeeded in lifting nearly 2 million pensioners out of absolute poverty since 1997. We now spend an extra £11 billion a year on pensioners, with almost half of the extra spending going to the least well-off third. Had we simply increased the basic state pension in line with earnings, only just over a quarter of that extra spending would have gone to the least well-off third, who would have been £30 a week worse off than they are under these measures. On average, pensioner households are now £1,400 a year, or £27 a week, better off in real terms than they would have been under the 1997 system, with the least well-off third of households £1,900 a year, or £37 a week, better off in real terms.
	As well as tackling the dreadful legacy of pensioner poverty that we inherited, we have also helped all pensioners and will continue to do so. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor confirmed yesterday that the winter fuel payment would be £200 for every year of this Parliament. He also announced that he would be setting aside an additional £300 million over the next three years, so that the Government's warm front programme can offer pensioner households on pension credit free installation of central heating, and all other pensioner households without central heating a contribution of £300 towards the cost of installing it. He also announced further help with the cost of insulation. I believe that the whole House will welcome those announcements.
	We have now reached the unprecedented position in which pensioners are no more likely to be poor than any other group in society. That is a particularly remarkable achievement after a period in which earnings have grown so fast, thanks to the stability and steady growth that we have enjoyed in the economy since 1997. We need now to introduce further reform to ensure that our pensions system continues to deliver for future generations of pensioners, as it is doing for today's. So we warmly welcome the broad framework of the Pensions Commission's proposals and options, which were published last week. We believe that they will provide the right basis for building the consensus that we need, but there is still a great deal to be discussed and debated about the detail.
	Yesterday, I issued a challenge to the pensions industry. It believes that it can produce an industry-led model that will meet the Turner objective of enabling everyone to save for a pension at low cost, while outperforming the one proposed in the report. I have therefore asked the industry to work up the details of its alternative approach by early February, ahead of a joint national pensions debate event between industry and Government, when those proposals can be closely examined. In the same way, as we embark on a major new consultation exercise involving every section of our community, we shall scrutinise the commission proposals and options, debating the best ways to achieve the objectives that the commission set out and to deliver a lasting pensions settlement.
	If we are to meet the challenges of an ageing society and permanently eradicate poverty in retirement, we also need to address the inequalities during people's working lives. That is why our record in tackling child poverty is so important. It is why we are committed to supporting families in work, why our welfare reforms and our aspiration for an 80 per cent. employment rate are so important, and why we want to see a modern, active and inclusive welfare state. We have lifted more than half a million children out of relative low income since 1997. Twenty million people, including just over 10 million children, are benefiting from tax credits, and the child tax credit, which will also increase by earnings, is benefiting 6 million families.
	The standard rate of maternity allowance and statutory maternity pay will be increased by the RPI to £108.85 a week. Whereas in 1997 the maximum maternity pay and child benefit payment for mothers at home with their first baby was just £2,610 for the first year, by 2007 it will rise to £8,300—a real-terms increase of more than £5,000. In addition, the Work and Families Bill, which received its Second Reading yesterday, introduces a new entitlement to statutory paternity pay to enable a father to take time off work and to receive statutory pay instead of his partner if she returns to work early. That gives parents greater choice in how they balance their work and caring responsibilities in the first year of their child's life. For the sixth successive year, we are freezing non-dependent deductions to relieve the pressure on low-income parents who are accommodating their adult children.
	Work is the best route out of poverty. There are now more people in jobs in Britain than ever before—2.3 million more than in 1997. Unemployment is at its lowest for nearly 30 years, with long-term youth unemployment 90 per cent. lower than in 1997. In just 12 months, employment has risen by 330,000 to 28.8 million, and is the highest in the country's history. It has risen in every region and nation of the UK. The lone parent employment rate has increased by 11 percentage points since 1997, and nearly 1 million lone parents are now in work, while the number on income support has fallen by more than 200,000 since 1997.
	As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said yesterday, we are not going to abolish the new deal; we will strengthen it. We will offer learning agreements for teenagers in eight areas of the country, extend the new deal pilots to help lone parents back to work, and pilot personal action plans for those unemployed for six months or more. Our new deal for disabled people has seen nearly 75,000 job entries since its launch in 2001, with 200,000 disabled people helped into work through our total package of new deal programmes.
	We are seeing very encouraging early results from the pathways to work pilots. In the first year of those, the number of recorded job entries for people with a health condition or disability almost doubled compared with the same period the year before. Their continued success has driven a significant rise in the proportion of customers leaving incapacity benefit in the first six months of their claim, compared with non-pilot areas. Overall, on a national basis, that early success would be equivalent to something in the region of 150,000 incapacity benefit claimants being helped into work each year. That success has underpinned our achievements in helping people off incapacity benefit, with new cases now down a third since 1997 and the first falls in the total count, which fell by 41,000 in the year to May 2005.
	In March, the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 completed the most far-reaching programme of disability rights legislation that any European country has put in place. It fulfilled our manifesto commitment to deliver enforceable and comprehensive civil rights for disabled people, and is a major landmark in enabling disabled people to live independently, fully recognised and respected as equal members of society.
	Last week, on the international day for disabled people, we launched the new Office for Disability Issues. From this week, the Disability Discrimination Act extended protection from discrimination to another 250,000 people. However, we are not stopping there. In January, our Welfare Reform Green Paper will go further in tackling exclusion from economic activity and independence across the working-age population.
	In April, we shall take further steps to break down the barriers that face older workers. The radical tax simplification that comes into play on A-day will do much to help. The Pensions Act 2004 continues to improve the rewards for those who choose to delay taking their state pension—even for only a short period—and, in April, the first people will benefit from the new option of a lump sum for state pension deferral, which could be worth more than £5,000.
	In the spring, our White Paper will seek to lay the basis for a consensus on a lasting pensions settlement. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor also announced yesterday a change to the treatment of charitable, voluntary and personal injury income payments in income-related benefits. They are already disregarded in pension credit and pension-age housing benefit and council tax benefit. To simplify the system further and encourage the work of charities, they will be disregarded from October next year in assessing all eligibility for income support and jobseeker's allowance. There will also be a 52-week grace period for lump sum personal injury payments when assessing entitlement to income support, jobseeker's allowance and working-age housing benefit and council tax benefit.
	This year's uprating continues our commitment to promoting opportunities for the many, not the few. It contributes to our programme of reform, which balances rights with responsibilities and offers everyone the opportunity to build a decent income for their retirement. It takes another big step away from the legacy of pernicious poverty, which we are determined should never return.

Nigel Waterson: I thank the Minister for his customary courtesy in letting me have an advance copy of the statement.
	I imagine that many of my colleagues are somewhat preoccupied with announcements that relate not to benefits but to the Conservative party and its future. I should like to take the first opportunity in the Chamber to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) on his overwhelming election as leader of our great party.
	As a party, we naturally support any uprating of benefits. When the time comes, we shall not vote against them, unlike the Liberal Democrats, who memorably once voted against an uprating.
	Perhaps the Minister could tell me in his response how much more the basic state pension would be next year if it were increased in line with earnings, not prices, as my party promised at the last election.
	The statement is badged as being on welfare reform, yet, nearly nine years after the Government were first elected, we continue to hear the tired old rhetoric. The statement referred to the Government's "ambitious" programme and a "programme of radical reform", but where are those ambitious or radical proposals?
	Perhaps I can understand Ministers' natural caution. After all, when the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) was appointed the first Minister responsible for welfare and pension reform, the Prime Minister told him to think the unthinkable. He was promptly sacked for doing so.
	The Government continue to dither about the reform of incapacity benefit. After a delay of many months, we are now promised a Green Paper in January. The problems of the Child Support Agency remain dire, with the recent revelation that the agency is spending more on its recovery department than it is recovering. When will Ministers decide that enough is enough? Only the other day, the Prime Minister revealed his view that root-and-branch reform was needed. I appreciate that he is less and less able to influence events, but when can we expect a statement on the CSA's future?
	As if that were not bad enough, many families throughout the land have been caused unnecessary worry by overpayments of tax credit and the insensitive pursuit of their repayment. It seems to have become a ritual on such occasions for Ministers to go on about the successes—or the alleged successes—of the new deal. It remains a stain on the Government's record that 1 million young people are not working or in education or training. When will Ministers make that tragic wasted talent a priority?
	On pensions, I should perhaps declare an interest as I have some private pension provision. The Chancellor attempted to torpedo Lord Turner's report before it was even published. In a leaked letter, he said to Lord Turner:
	"'you should not assume' that the current link of the pension credit to earnings will continue beyond 2008."
	Will the Minister confirm that pension credit will continue to be linked to earnings beyond 2008? In the part of the letter dealing with the Turner report, it was said:
	"We warmly welcome the broad framework of the Pensions Commission's"—
	that is, its report—
	"and we believe they are the right basis . . . But there is still a great deal to be discussed and debated about the detail."
	Presumably, that is especially with the Chancellor. That is not exactly a ringing endorsement of an exercise that has taken three years and has cost £1.6 million.
	Let me ask the Minister a direct question. Can he assure the House, with an entirely straight face, that he and his right hon. Friend are approaching the Turner report with a genuinely open mind? Was all this excellent work and analysis to be discarded on the say-so of the Chancellor? Does the Minister at least accept one of Lord Turner's central conclusions: that means testing needs to be reduced? At present, nearly half of all pensioners depend on means-tested benefits. By 2050, that proportion will have risen to more than 70 per cent. Yet there are still 1.7 million pensioners entitled to pension credit who are not claiming it. The latest figures show that despite all the money that is being spent in the form of advertising and given all the efforts of the Pension Service, take-up is hardly increasing at all.
	I shall make a prediction. I believe that, just as the Government have done with the measure of poverty or the timing of the economic cycle, they are about to move the goal post on their previously stated targets for pension credit and announce that in reality, the actual target should always have been lower. That is the Government's preferred method of tackling a difficult problem—just change the target or the methodology. We know that the take-up for other benefits, such as council tax benefit, is even more lamentable. The latest statistics show that in 2002–03 alone, pensioners were failing to claim up to £2.9 billion in means-tested benefits. No wonder 2 million pensioners are still living in poverty.
	Only yesterday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear that the payment to help older people pay their council tax bills was a one-off for one year only. As it turned out, that was election year. Despite the amounts spent on local government finance, many councils, especially in the south-east, are predicting further sharp rises in council tax in addition to the massive rises that are already being suffered under the Government. Do Ministers not realise the terror that many pensioners have of receiving a council tax demand or a utility bill?
	How can we ensure that older people keep warm when gas prices, especially, are soaring? The Government's lack of an energy policy is as glaringly apparent as their lack of a pensions policy. In its comments on yesterday's announcements, Age Concern referred to winter fuel payments, which it welcomes. It referred to the fact that, sadly, 31,000 pensioners died last winter as a result of the cold. It added that
	"the Government needs to reform the basic state pension so that all pensioners know that they will have enough money in their pockets to pay their basic costs."
	The growth in dependency on the state does not seem to bother the Chancellor. Does it bother the Minister, perhaps, that across British society as a whole, one third of households now rely on the state for more than half their income? If it does not bother him, it should.
	Does it not add insult to injury to those in the private sector, and those who have no occupational pension, that the public sector are to enjoy the same pension terms, including retirement at 60 or even earlier, for the next 40 years?
	Will the Minister tell the House where we are on error and fraud in the system? According to the Public Accounts Committee, about £3 billion a year could be lost through fraud and error.
	Yesterday's statement, and the reaction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to Lord Turner's report, proves—if proof were still needed—that it is the present incumbent of No. 11 who is the roadblock to reform in the welfare system, as well as across the whole of public services. For far too long the Department of Work and Pensions has behaved like a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Treasury. Is it not high time that Ministers started to come up with some ideas of their own for welfare reform?

Philip Hollobone: Although I appreciate the Government's noble intentions on the reduction of child poverty, will the Minister confirm the number of children whom he estimates remain in absolute poverty? Has he had a chance to see today's press reports that quote research from Save the Children that, despite their best efforts, the Government are unlikely to meet their target to eliminate children poverty by 2020?

John Denham: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require all employment vacancies to be advertised with a combined valuation of pay and pension rights; and for connected purposes.
	Having been a Member for some time, I appreciate the way in which the ten-minute Bill procedure enables Members to make proposals that do not claim to revolutionise or transform our way of life but merely aim simply and practically to make things a bit better. I make no more claim for this Bill than that—a simple, practical and small change that would make pensions a bit better.
	When I first sought a date to introduce the Bill, I did not realise that it would follow so quickly after the excellent Pensions Commission report. I was understandably nervous that my fox might be shot before today arrived. In fact, I am confident that the Bill would work effectively to support the Pension Commission's recommendations. This is not the time to rehearse the detail of Lord Turner's proposals, but, as everyone now knows, he proposes a sensible balance between tax-funded, state-paid pensions, sufficient to lift most people out of means-testing, and invested pensions.
	Even if—or, as I hope, when—the basic framework of the Turner report is implemented, state pension provision will lift most men and women only just above the basic level of pension income means-testing. A comfortable retirement will depend on the size of their second pension. My concern today is to support invested pensions and Turner's aim of encouraging
	"the maintenance of existing high quality pension provision"
	through which employers provide more generous contributions than those in the proposed soft compulsion scheme.
	The first report of the Pensions Commission showed that good quality employer pension provision is on the decline. It estimated that active membership of defined benefit schemes had fallen by 60 per cent. since 1995. It found that although a quarter of private sector employees were still members of salary-related schemes, only 14 per cent. of new employees were in such schemes. The report concluded:
	"Rolling these trends forward, and even if the rate of closure now slows considerably,"
	defined benefit
	"scheme membership is likely to become a primarily public sector phenomenon."
	Of course, when defined benefit schemes are closed, they are usually replaced by defined contribution schemes of one sort or another. Overall, Turner's judgment was that membership of employer provision was flat, or perhaps declining. However, it is clear that the average employer contribution to defined schemes is much lower than that to traditional defined benefit or final salary schemes. Employer contributions to defined benefit schemes were estimated at about 11 to 14 per cent. of salary, whereas such contributions to defined contribution schemes were about 4 to 7 per cent. Despite that downward trend, it is clear that employees with any employer contribution to their scheme are general much better placed than those with none.
	We could debate the reasons for the decline in the best quality pensions at some length. There are many factors, and as a former Minister with responsibility for pensions I would have to include among them well-meaning regulation passed by Governments of both parties in response to the fears and concerns of our constituents. However, probably the most important factor is simply the changing nature of the competitive economy. The type of larger company that traditionally provided a good pension scheme is in long-term decline. It might be that the best final salary schemes never made hard, bottom-line economic sense, but such schemes were widely seen as part of companies' corporate social responsibility. By having such schemes, those companies made a significant contribution to not only their own success, but the wider economy.
	Today's economic environment is much harsher and more globally competitive. Although many employers still understand the mixture of altruistic, paternalistic and self-interested arguments for good pension schemes, they are increasingly likely to be challenged by shareholders and accountants. In a competitive economy, some companies compete for business by cutting pension provision, or not making any provision at all. As always, the worst can drive down the standards of the rest.
	We will still need good employer provision, even when Turner is implemented. The Pensions Commission report makes it clear that its proposals for state pensions and the soft compulsion of the national pension savings scheme would give average earners pensions of just under half their salary when they retire—and that would be at the older retirement age. If people want to receive traditional benefits such as those from a final salary scheme, or if they want a pension that is big enough to allow them to take early retirement, or a less pressured or part-time job before they get their state pension, they or their employers will need to make additional contributions.
	If we want to retain the best employer provision that we can, we need to examine new ways to encourage and support good employer provision over and above the minimum that all employers should be required to do. We need to look at ways in which employers can see a clear business case—a clear labour marker advantage—from a good pension scheme. That is precisely what the Bill is intended to do. It aims to make the value of employer pension contributions explicit to potential employees. By doing so, it will give better employers an edge in the labour market.
	Most people simply do not realise how much a good employer's pension scheme can add to the value of a job. As a result, the quality of pension provision appears to play little role in determining the attractiveness of an employer to potential employees. However, it should, and this Bill would help to ensure that it did.
	Let us consider a job that would normally be advertised at an average salary of about £24,000 a year. According to Union Pension Services, a good typical final salary scheme is worth an extra £3,400 in employer contributions each year, so the job would be advertised not at £24,000, but at £27,400, which is an increase of 14 per cent. A typical public sector final salary scheme—of course these are now closed to new entrants, but I had to do these calculations on the figures available—is worth about an extra £2,900 in employer contributions, so the job would be advertised at a combined value of £26,900. A typical money purchase scheme is worth an extra £1,200 in employer contributions, so the job would be advertised at a combined value of £25,200. In comparison, a job that paid £24,000 a year where the employee is in the state second pension scheme but receives no additional contribution would be advertised at £24,000. For information purposes, a self-employed person would need to receive about £24,700 a year to gain the same financial benefit as an employee in the state second pension.
	The Bill is a small practical step that will reward good employers by helping them to recruit and retain staff. It will make sure that the best employers can easily be identified by potential employees. It will also help to guard against the danger of the 3 per cent. employer contribution to the national pension savings scheme proposed by Turner becoming the standard employer contribution, rather than the baseline or a minimum. Any lasting pension reform will require a good deal of consensus across parties and outside the House, so I am pleased that my Bill has cross-party support. I pleased, too, that it has received the support of the National Association of Pension Funds—the leading voice of workplace pension provision in the UK. There are 10 million working people in NAPF member schemes, and about 5 million pensioners receive retirement income from such schemes. The NAPF chief executive, Christine Farnish, said:
	"Millions of people are building up valued pension entitlements through workplace pension schemes. But there remains a lack of understanding among many about just how valuable a good pension scheme can be.
	The new Bill would give employers with good pension schemes a deserved advantage in the labour market, and enable prospective employees to get a clear picture, in pounds and pence, of the value of the pension on offer.
	People are becoming more aware of the value of a good pension when it comes to making job decisions. This Bill would help in making those decisions easier."
	Age Concern, too, has welcomed the Bill and has referred to research from the Labour Research Department showing that more information about company pension schemes was the most common demand from people who have not yet joined a scheme.
	Of course, the Bill would not place any additional burden on employers. I envisage that a standard actuarial approach would be agreed across the economy and that guidance to employers on the calculation of benefits would be provided each time the scheme is revalued. This is not a revolutionary Bill but it is a small, practical step that would make some improvement to pensions, so I commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Denham, Ms Sally Keeble, Rob Marris, Dr. Alan Whitehead, Mr. Richard Benyon, Chris Huhne, Mr. Frank Field, Huw Irranca-Davies, Nick Herbert and Mr. Philip Dunne.

Richard Caborn: Yes, it will. I have no doubt that the ODA will want to make to sure that its work is in the public domain and that it attracts a consensus.
	I think that the answer is yes on the question of a public session with the ODA, but I will probably write to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) to clarify the matter.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Hugh Robertson: The Olympic surcharge will start in April 2006, and Londoners will pay between £13.33 for a band A dwelling and £40.00 for band H. Some 69 per cent. of Londoners are in bands A to D and they will pay between £13.33 and £20.00, and 31 per cent. will pay between £24.44 and £40.00.
	As Conservatives, we entirely support the principle that Londoners should make a contribution to the financing of the games. There are four main reasons for that. London is the host city, so it is likely to benefit most from tourism and promotion; London businesses will undoubtedly benefit enormously; the east end of London will be regenerated; and Londoners will have the world's greatest sporting event on their doorstep. It is therefore perfectly reasonable that they should make a financial contribution over and above the remainder of the United Kingdom. In short, we accept the figure of £625 million and signed up to it at the time of the bid.

Don Foster: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed), because he has teased the House with his suggestion that, if someone were to tell him where the overrun money would come from, he could support the new clause. Perhaps I can give him an answer to his question in a second, and if that is satisfactory to him, we shall look forward to seeing him in the Division Lobby shortly.
	I was grateful to the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) for mentioning the Liberal Democrats' support for the new clause. It should have come as no surprise to him that we would support it, however, because my hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) made it clear, back in the run-up to the June 2004 mayoral election—in which he was an extremely good candidate for the Liberal Democrats—that, while the Liberal Democrats would welcome the contribution of the people of London on account of the fact that they would be among the main beneficiaries of the Olympic and Paralympic games, that contribution should be capped so that Londoners would know where they stood.
	The hon. Member for Loughborough shares with me, as the Member for the wonderful city of Bath, the certain knowledge that our constituents will benefit enormously from the games because we—along with Sheffield and other cities—have some of the premier sporting facilities in this country, which will no doubt be used by the visiting and home nation teams in the preparations for the games. That might offer a bit of a clue as to where the contribution might come from, should there be an overrun.
	Before discussing the possibility of such overruns, let me say that I joined the Minister, the Secretary of State, the leader of my party, the leader of the Conservative party and the Prime Minister in putting up my hand and saying to the International Olympic Committee that we believed that our bid was backed by an extremely robust financial plan. We made it clear that we were so confident that we had learned the lessons from previous Olympics that we were certain that an overrun—which others described as probable—was not likely to happen. Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Loughborough challenges us to say where the money should come from in the event of an overrun. If he wants the answer, he should examine what we told the IOC when we bid for the games in the first instance, because our bid document provides the answer.
	Our full bid statement made it clear that we were committing the United Kingdom Government to be the ultimate guarantor in the event of any shortfall, including any shortfall in the operating budget of the London organising committee for the Olympic games. When the IOC evaluated our submission, it said clearly:
	"The UK Government has guaranteed it would act as the ultimate financial guarantor to cover any shortfall from the Games."
	It went on to say—as I suggested, I am not surprised—that the
	"budget appears to be reasonable and achievable".
	The position is therefore clear. Let me say to the hon. Member for Loughborough that I am confident that there will be no overrun or budget shortfall. Should that eventuality occur, however, it is not right for London council tax payers to pay more than what appears to me to be their fair share.
	I suspect that, in a minute, the Minister will tell us that if we remove the responsibility from London council tax payers, that will lift any pressure on the Greater London authority and the Mayor to bear down on costs. Clearly, that is not the case. As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent, London has pledge £550 million, with an extra £75 million to call on if needed. Clearly, it is in the interests of the Mayor of London and all GLA members to ensure that even that £75 million is not called on. Within the deal, there is a mechanism to exert downward pressure on costs. It is perhaps also worth reflecting that the Government are not currently making a direct contribution to the Olympics and Paralympics, but are seeking that money from all sorts of other bodies. At the same time, however, the Government will generate significant revenues as a result of the games coming to this country. Later, we will debate one source of revenue—the VAT on the Olympic lottery game.

Don Foster: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but answering it would be beyond my pay grade. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) might have a few comments to make in respect of that proposal, and I suggest to her that she takes the issue up with him, rather than persuading me to risk his ire by responding.
	One thing is absolutely clear: London council tax payers still have a mechanism to exert that financial pressure and to keep the costs as low as possible. The Government, who are currently not making a contribution, but will gain considerable revenue as a result of the games, also demonstrate that they, too, will exercise pressure to keep the cost down. That is shown by the welcome decision by the Secretary of State, the London organising committee for the Olympic games and others to reject the proposals for the swimming pool complex. Evidence therefore already shows that measures are being taken to keep the price down.
	It would be wrong, however, to put ourselves in a position whereby London council tax payers are left in uncertainty about their financial responsibilities. They are rightly being asked to contribute to the cost of the games because of the significant benefits that London will gain, but it is equally right, as the new clause proposes, to cap the contribution so that London tax payers know what they are paying for and for how long. That should be the end of the matter.

Mark Field: I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) and agree with what he is trying to achieve through the new clause.
	Many of us who are sports lovers in London have faced the difficulty of the half-hearted and perhaps lukewarm support for the Olympic bid. I was delighted to see the scenes on 6 July, but I have expressed concerns over many years about the costs of the Olympic games. I have always felt that the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, is likely to issue a blank cheque. I put that proposition to the Secretary of State a year or two ago, and it was pooh-poohed, but I fear that that will be the reality.
	Overall expenditure is supposed to be £2.375 billion. A robust case was made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) that there will not necessarily be an overrun. He is right to say that we should not start in a negative frame of mind, but experience shows that there have been significant overruns. Clearly, we hope that there will be great commercial gains, which will ensure that quite a lot of money comes into central coffers, but we should recall that Sydney's cost overrun increased almost threefold from £1 billion to £2.8 billion. That must be of great concern to us all—Londoners and everyone else in the United Kingdom—because it is in all our interests not to have an overrun.
	The big issue is that, in essence, London council tax payers will be subject to a massive multiplier effect. The overall costings of £2.375 billion presume £1.5 billion of lottery funding. I entirely understand what the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said but I do not necessarily share his reluctance to see the cap lifted.
	At present, it is suggested that £250 million could come from the London Development Agency and £625 million from the London council tax payer. If the overall cost is not £2.375 billion and is, let us say, £3 billion, that will in essence be equivalent to a 100 per cent. multiplier effect on the London council tax payer. That is how the additional £625 million will be raised. It is to be hoped that we will not have a Sydney-type situation where there is a massive cost overrun of perhaps £2 billion, because that additional £2 billion would fall on London council tax payers to pay. That would be entirely unacceptable. London council tax payers would effectively be paying for the blank cheque to which I referred in the House only about 18 months ago.

Mark Field: I thank my hon. Friend. I hope that he is not smoking those fags either in this place or anywhere else; perhaps he is still entitled to do so. That is the nub of the problem. In essence, in London, the risk is that we will find ourselves with an enormous burden for many years to come. Already concerns have been expressed by hon. Friends and, I think, Labour Members about the costs that are likely to be imposed upon London taxpayers. As it is, effectively, the cost is likely to be £20, £30 or £40 a year over 20 years. It could be considerably worse given the multiplier effect to which I have referred.
	I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling) is no longer in his place but he rightly referred to the fact that the chairman of the London Development Agency, Mary Reilly, has admitted that the costs of preparing the Olympic site could double from the planned £478 million to £1 billion. If that became a cost overrun, rather than being dealt with by the budgets that have been agreed, that would, once again, penalise council tax payers in London fairly soon. Those are great concerns.
	Anyone who has been to the Lower Lea valley site will have seen that it is greatly contaminated. It is difficult to estimate the likely cost of cleaning that land and ensuring that it is fit for purpose. Inevitably, there is always some optimism in putting forward a strategy and I accept that a robust financial case was made—it was not just a lot of cascading figures—but, very quickly, however robust the financial case, things can go horribly awry. It looks as though the cost of clearing up the site is likely to be significantly more than the £478 million that was mooted at the outset.
	Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make this brief contribution. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent has made a sensible suggestion and I hope that the House will seriously consider it. I am particularly glad that it has cross-party support; the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) supports it. It is wrong that London taxpayers should suffer from the potentially ruinous multiplier effect to which I have referred. There may be some merit in the comment of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) that the £625 million should not be the cap if there were to be a massive cost overrun. I am sure that London taxpayers would be happy to pay their share, but the reality is that, with a cost overrun, they will pay 100 per cent. of every pound in excess. That would not be the right way forward.

Pete Wishart: Absolutely. There is genuine enthusiasm in Scotland for an Olympic games, and there is massive enthusiasm for a separate Scottish Olympic team—an idea which I hope the hon. Lady supports.

Simon Hughes: But the reality is that when the Mayor stands for election and determines how much he will charge as a precept across the authority, some of the money that is collected can be spent on the sort of things that are done by the LDA. I accept that some of the LDA's money comes from the Exchequer, but—I stand to be corrected on this point—not all of it comes from the Government. The authority raises some of the money itself; some of it comes from joint schemes with the London boroughs and some of it indirectly from people who visit London. Certainly, businesses and individuals perceive that they contribute to all the budgets for all the spending streams from the Mayor's office, of which the Mayor administers one and that is where pressure can be applied.
	The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) pointed out that the proposal would mean capping the burden on Londoners at the expense of the Scots. That is a dangerous road to take. I do not want to be divisive, but I must put the case on the record: London contributes about 15 per cent. net to the UK economy, which is far more than it receives. Under the Barnett formula, Scotland has done very well, far better per capita than the rest of the United Kingdom. That is part of the constitutional development of the UK. London continues to raise, and spend, money and puts it into the UK kitty. As a capital city, it is happy to do so, but the hon. Gentleman would be wrong to think that we do not constantly make a significant contribution to Scotland.

Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend is right. Nobody is saying that Londoners would not have to bear their share of the burden if, despite the undertakings and expectations, there was an additional cost. We would pay our fair share like everybody else, but we are already making a specific extra commitment. We know that we have to do that; it could be for 10 or 12 years, which is not insignificant, especially for people on the lowest incomes, so we think that contribution should be capped.
	The last point that I want to make is this. As you would imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this proposal has been debated across the political parties in London. As the Minister knows, when it went to the London Assembly, 14 members of the Assembly across all parties, including the Minister's, supported it; no one opposed it.

Richard Caborn: Absolutely. That is why we say that all those factors will be taken into account. The memorandum of understanding states:
	"amounts to be agreed at the time."
	That is what the MOU is all about, and the way that it has been interpreted by some hon. Members is fundamentally wrong. We believe that this is the right approach. It would not be prudent at this stage to close off any of those funding options to meet a hypothetical future shortfall by capping the amount of council tax that the Mayor may raise. The GLA takes exactly the same view.
	In the event of cost overrun, the Government and the Mayor will need to consider all the options available to them. It is right that council tax will fund some of the games, as they will bring a great many benefits to Londoners—again, that has been explained already this evening—but we have no intention of making a dramatic raid on ordinary council tax payers. If cost overruns were to occur, we would want to balance any possible costs sensitively to avoid imposing punitive costs on individual households. Nevertheless, the Olympic project will be overseen jointly by the Government and the GLA. Under the existing funding and governance arrangements, we have shared interests in running things properly and keeping down costs. That is the right way to do things.
	We must ensure that we retain a shared interest in keeping down costs, but it would be entirely imprudent to cap the liability of one of those parties at this early stage in the process. It is therefore vital that everyone involved should have the maximum incentive to remain hawkish about keeping down the costs. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already called in the aquatic centre proposals because of the possible cost overrun. I send a very clear message to all those who will be involved in contractual agreements that we will expect them to keep to those costs. That can be done—it can be done by the type of management that we have at terminal 5.
	The Government feel that it would be irresponsible to place a statutory limit on council tax funding at the outset of the Olympic project. I reassure hon. Members again that in the unlikely and unfortunate scenario in which costs run over budget, we would sit down with the Mayor to work out a sensible solution that would not cripple the average household. The Mayor and the GLA are content with that reassurance, so I hope that hon. Members will also accept it and that the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent will withdraw the new clause.

Hugh Robertson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	I tabled the new clause with my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) in the light of the omission in yesterday's pre-Budget report of any extra funding for elite athletes who are training for the Olympic games and of increasing concerns among sports outside the Olympic movement about the amount of funding available.
	The parliamentary background to the new clause is well documented. The new Olympic lottery games were established under section 3 of the Horserace, Betting and Olympic Lottery Act 2004. It provided for four things: a regulator, the National Lottery Commission, to license lottery games; the establishment of a fund to hold the proceeds generated by the new games; the establishment of a body to distribute money held in the fund; and the principle that money held in the fund would be distributed to meet the costs of staging the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games.
	As the Bill passed through the House, my party raised two concerns—the start time, which we felt should coincide with the Athens Olympics, and the tax take—so the amendment is nothing new. We know that the Government plan to use £1.5 billion from lottery sources to finance the games—£750 million will come from existing sources and £750 million from the new Olympic lottery games. As money from the new games will be split in the same way as existing lottery proceeds, we know that 50 per cent. will go to the winners, 28 per cent. will go to good causes—in this case, the Olympic games—12 per cent., and this is the crucial figure, will go to the Government in tax, 5 per cent. in commission to retailers, 4.5 per cent. in operating costs and 0.5 per cent. to Camelot.
	It is therefore relatively easy to calculate that if the 28 per cent. earmarked for good causes—in this case, the Olympic games—has to fund the £750 million that the Government are looking for, total lottery sales from the new games must be about £2.68 billion. The Government's tax take—12 per cent.—is £320 million, which is how we arrive at that figure.
	The British Olympic Association has already announced its intention to move Great Britain from 10th to fourth in the medal table. It is a brutal fact of life that the public will judge the success of the 2012 games by the number of medals we win. The BOA has calculated that an extra £25 million is needed each and every year to deliver on that commitment, with an extra £25 million needed for minor sports. The BOA expected that from yesterday's pre-Budget report and was cruelly disappointed.
	Furthermore, sports outside the Olympic movement, and particularly the main mass participation sports of football, cricket, tennis and both codes of rugby, supported the London 2012 bid precisely because of its generic benefit to sport. They should receive enormous credit for this, as it enabled British sport to present an unusually united front to the International Olympic Committee. However, now that the games are secured, they are, quite reasonably, asking what this means for them. They have a number of concerns.
	First, the new Olympic lottery game could lead to a diversion of funds from existing lottery games, meaning less money in the pot for those sports. Secondly, the diversion of a further £750 million from existing lottery sources will obviously mean that less money is available for non-Olympic sports. As a practical example of the effect that this will have, the Rugby Football League told me that it had planned to bid for the 2012 World cup. It now fears that lottery funds will not be available to finance that.
	Thirdly, Government reforms to the lottery, by moving away from the four original pillars—sport, the arts, charities and heritage—mean that there is less money available in the first place. Fourthly, all four of the major sport national governing bodies have told me that they worry that UK Sport is becoming Olympics-dominated in its thinking. That is entirely understandable, but it is vital that we do not lose focus on mass participation sports, which, with the best will in the world, is what the vast majority of people will be playing in the seven years up to 2012 and beyond.
	Fifthly, the sponsorship needed for London 2012 to be a commercial success is, I am told, twice that of the current market value. Although London 2012 will undoubtedly attract new sponsors, it is inevitable that some of sport's existing sponsors will, for obvious reasons, be lured towards the Olympics. As commercial companies do not have unlimited resources, that is bound to impact on the everyday sports. The sponsorship market will fall and that will impact on grass-roots activity.
	Finally, there is the possibility of disruption to the UK's sporting calendar as a result of the IOC's prohibition on major sporting events during the period of the games. I know from my discussions with the Rugby Football League that the super league season, which runs from February to October, faces disruption, as does the Challenge cup final at Wembley on the August bank holiday. The England and Wales Cricket Board made clear its concerns at an all-party cricket group dinner the other week that its ICC future tours programme is already projected until 2013. I know and accept that there is scope for negotiation with the IOC but—this is the important point—many sports outside the Olympic movement have made compromises without, as yet, seeing any return.
	There are two arguments here, one moral and one practical. The moral argument is that given that the Olympics is a one-off, national event, it is utterly iniquitous that the Chancellor should seek to fill his coffers in this fashion. The practical argument is that the concerns of sports inside and outside the Olympic movement could be met by the Government allocating the £320 million that they intend to take in tax from the new Olympic lottery games to the benefit of sport.
	I can do no better than quote directly from the chief executive of the British Olympic Association who, in the absence from the pre-Budget report yesterday of an increase in Government funding to train our elite athletes, said:
	"This is devastating news for the Olympic Governing Bodies and the aspirations that we all have for delivering successful results at the 2008 and 2012 Olympic Games."
	Even UK Sport, the Government's own quango, whose chair is a Government special adviser, said:
	"We're disappointed because we want the best chance of success for our athletes."
	On the other side of the fence, among the mass participation sports, the chief executive of the Football Association said recently:
	"We have some concerns that the Government's concentration of effort and funding on the Games, whilst understandable"—
	it is fair to say that everybody accepts that—
	"may inadvertently lead to a lack of support for the regular grassroots non-Olympic sports that we all know is vital.
	We will be doing all we can to remind all Governments between now and 2012"—
	I was encouraged by that—
	"that, while medals at the Games are important, the country cannot afford to neglect our collective efforts to increase participation levels in our most popular sports."
	I could not agree more on both counts.
	Sport, both Olympic, to fund our elite athletes, and non-Olympic, needs extra funding if the aspirations raised by winning the bid are to become reality. The return of the £320 million in tax taken from the new Olympic lottery games is both morally right and a practical way of starting to deliver for sport. I therefore urge all hon. Members to accept the new clause.

Don Foster: As ever, I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed). On this occasion, I agree with almost everything that he has said and was not offended when he described me as hair-shirted. I also agree with him about the addition of rugby sevens on to the list of sports, although I say that slightly diffidently knowing that my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) will no doubt read my remarks and wonder why darts has not been included on the wish list for additional Olympic sports.
	As the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) has said, the Chancellor's statement caused considerable disappointment given what he did not say about funding for sporting endeavour, and particularly sporting endeavour that helps us to achieve an increased medal haul. He was right to say that those of us who share that concern need to get together with the representative bodies to find arguments to put pressure on the Chancellor and to come up with other forms of funding. As the hon. Member for Loughborough has said, a lot is being done, and I praise the Minister and the Government for their work. I also hope that we go on to develop links between community sports clubs and our schools.
	My party simply cannot support the approach proposed by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent, because we have some difficulty with the Conservative party's mixed messages about the lottery. Conservative Members tell us that it is wrong for the Government to put their sticky little mitts in lottery funding, but the Conservative party manifesto contains a proposal to raise £250 million a year from the lottery for its club-to-school scheme. The Conservative party is proposing a form of hypothecated tax, which Conservative Members always say is complete anathema to them whenever we make such a proposal—the Conservative proposal is schizophrenic.
	Many hon. Members had grave qualms about using the lottery to make a major contribution towards the cost of running the Olympics. However, Liberal Democrats recognised that the Olympics are so important to the nation, to sport and in many other ways—for example, culturally—that we were prepared to make an exception. That is why we supported the Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Act 2004, and I believe that we were right to do so. During the passage of the 2004 Act, we were disappointed when we were told that the £410 million from other distributors would only be available if it were needed, although it was not long after the 2004 Act received Royal Assent that the Government said that that sum would be needed. However, we lived with that situation, because we had made a commitment.
	Even were I prepared to support the notion of taking VAT in respect of just one part of the lottery and using it in the broad way that the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent suggests, I am not convinced that the mechanism would work. How would LOCOG, which has very specific responsibilities in respect of the running of the Olympic games, ensure that all aspects of sport will receive some of the money? Let me remind the hon. Gentleman of what would happen were LOCOG to receive that additional, very significant sum of money. As the games should operate successfully within budget as it is, an extra £320 million could lead to a surplus. He will remember that as part of the deal, 20 per cent. of any such surplus will go to the IOC, 20 per cent. to the BOA and 60 per cent. to grass-roots sport. He is suggesting, in effect, that we take money away from the lottery and give it to the IOC. Some of the money would not even end up in sport in this country. I find that aspect of the proposal difficult.
	The new clause is somewhat schizophrenic about the lottery and about the approach to VAT receipts and the Chancellor's responsibility for using them. For those and many other reasons with which I do not wish to detain the House, we will not support the hon. Gentleman, who in many other respects has done a fantastic job.

Richard Caborn: I echo some of the arguments made by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). I agree that the approach taken in new clause 2 is schizophrenic. People who criticised the Chancellor for not supporting the move from 10th to fourth position in the medals table in yesterday's pre-Budget report then argue about investment into grass-roots sport as well. The whole Olympic bid process has been one of properly evaluating the risks and costs so that we can learn lessons from previous mistakes. Simply plucking out of the air the idea that we are going to move from 10th to fourth, and then saying, "Please fund it, Chancellor", is not the best way of trying to persuade people that we are serious. UK Sport, under the very good leadership of Sue Campbell, together with Peter Keene, who is probably one of the best respected people in sport, and Liz Nicholl, is systematically working through what it will take to move us progressively up the medals table.
	I entirely accept that one of the great successes of 2012 will be our young people picking up those medals on the podiums. However, we have to balance the investment in 26 sports against the 130 sports for which I have ministerial responsibility. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) mentioned the balance between grass-roots and elite sport. We will get that balance right. There is more investment going into sport than there has been for very many years. The investment that is being made in sporting and physical activity through "Building Schools for the Future" clearly shows that we take it very seriously, from the grassroots to the podium.

Richard Caborn: There has not been a Chancellor in the recent past who has been more supportive of sport. The Central Council of Physical Recreation has been asking for mandatory rate relief for clubs for 30 years—now we have got it. The talented athlete scholarship scheme, which is investing into grassroots sport, came from the Chancellor. This Government's investment in sport—through the Chancellor, with support from the Prime Minister—has been second to none. UK Sport is putting a case together, and if it is well argued I believe that there could be a positive response. Trying to bounce the Treasury is not the best way forward.
	Opposition Members have presented the proposal in the new clause to us before in various forms. It would make a special case for the Olympic lottery by providing for a form of tax rebate. There are two reasons why that cannot happen. First, as with all taxes, the Chancellor keeps lottery duty under review and gives due consideration to Budget representations made in the course of the Finance Bill process. As such, any changes in lottery duty should be considered in the context of a future Finance Bill, not this Bill.
	Secondly, the Government intend that the same principles that apply to the existing national lottery should apply to any Olympics-themed games. Camelot says that the lottery game has been hugely successful. I put on the record my thanks to all the people who are buying Olympics lottery tickets. That clearly demonstrates the support behind the Olympic bid. People have put their money where their mouths were, and the first £4 million has already been made.
	The principle of taxation in the national lottery was accepted by Parliament when the lottery was introduced—[Interruption.] I know that it was introduced by the Opposition. I do not intend to make political points about that because the lottery is one of our national institutions and it has all-party support. Nevertheless, we have made it clear that it will be taxed in the normal way. The £500 million that is collected by the Exchequer goes towards essential services such as schools, hospitals and the like, and it would be wrong to remove it.
	I hope that the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) will reflect on the funding of elite as against grass-roots sport. I hope that he accepts that the right way to approach the Treasury is the way in which UK Sport is doing it, with a systematic analysis of what needs to be done in investing in elite sport to ensure that we move up the medals table. It is a little naive to say at this early stage that we will move from 10th to fourth without putting the funding mechanism in place. That is not the right way to go about it. I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the new clause.

Richard Ottaway: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 10, at end insert—
	'( ) pay compensation to any owner of a business whose interests are injuriously affected by the development of land, premises or facilities in connection with the London Olympics;'.
	This is the fourth time that I have raised the issue of compensation for businesses that will have to be relocated from the Olympic site. It is a matter of some sadness that I have had to bring it up four times, but I am afraid that I have still not received the answers that I am seeking.
	No two businesses on the Olympic site are the same. Some are freehold, some are leasehold; some are owned by sole proprietors, and some by publicly quoted companies. I suspect that the vast majority are leasehold, and it would be very easy for their leases to be terminated and for the companies to be relocated. Many of them are in storage, and it would simply be a question of moving the contents of the business from one site to another.
	The Minister is well aware of the particular constituency case that I have raised, so I shall not dwell on it, other than to say that it concerns a proprietor-owned freeholder who is experiencing severe difficulties in relocating. The Minister, to his credit, has said that he takes a keen personal interest in these matters, and has made all the right noises. Both he and the Mayor have said that no business will be disadvantaged. There is a lack of clarity, however, in exactly what is meant by that.
	The briefing that we received from the London Development Agency for the debate in Westminster Hall last week set out exactly what the agency's statutory responsibilities were in this regard. They include,
	"funding for legal and surveying costs, offers of LDA-owned sites for relocation, and development of tailored support packages".
	In a separate briefing, the LDA states that it has
	"given a firm assurance that no business will be financially disadvantaged as a result of the compulsory purchase order process."
	However, that still does not deal with the non-CPO aspects of this issue. The briefing continues:
	"Businesses will be compensated and supported as generously as possible, within the legal framework in which the LDA operates."
	Again, the LDA framework is general in its outlook without being specific as to exactly what kind of compensation might be available. A briefing helpfully provided by the Greater London Authority for today's debate states:
	"The Mayor and LDA remain firmly committed to ensuring that the process of land acquisition for the Olympic Park development does not disproportionately disadvantage those with current interests in the land."
	What on earth does that mean?
	Let us take the example of a business that has to be relocated. It would have to remarket itself, relaunch itself and retrain staff. It would inevitably suffer losses. I have one simple question for the Minister, if I can get his attention. Will the items that I have just set out—he might have missed them, but I am sure he has heard all this before—be covered? In an earlier intervention, he said that the LDA was Exchequer-funded, and that is quite right. So the power flows from the Government to the LDA to the dispossessed business. Does the Minister believe that the LDA has the power and the funds to provide complete compensation to a business in the situation that I have just described? In other words, would it cover the costs not only of relocation but of relaunching and the inevitable loss of profit? These are simple questions, and I would be grateful if the Minister could give me clear yes or no answers.

Richard Caborn: Each case is considered on its own merits, but relocation costs, new stock and loss of profits can be included. All that will be determined by the Lands Tribunal—this is where the independent tribunal comes in—under the Land Compensation Act 1961. There is independent arbitration and the facility to take into account losses beyond just the land price. If that is operated correctly, the questions raised by the hon. Gentleman should be answered.
	In relation to the concern raised by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson), all agents have guidelines for dealing with conflicts of interest, and all such procedures are fully regulated by the appropriate professional body. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has its code of conduct, and members of the RICS who are in breach of that could face expulsion. In light of the Adjournment debate that took place in Westminster Hall, I am writing to the LDA to draw its attention to that position. If there has been any such occurrence, I do not believe that it has been intentional. I reiterate that the Lands Tribunal is the mechanism for the type of arbitration to which the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) was referring.
	I genuinely hope that I have been able to answer the questions put on the record. Overall, the LDA has done a reasonable job in difficult circumstances. It had to respond post-6 July, and it has done that very well. We have put tremendous pressure on it, and I think that its approach to underground cabling and other issues will pay immense dividends in the medium to long term. While, on the one hand, it might not have answered a few telephone calls—I understand the frustration arising from that—on the other, I hope that when we get this Bill on to the statute book and the ODA takes over we can start working in a slightly more effective and efficient manner than has probably been the case previously.

Hugh Robertson: I want to speak in support of the amendments in my name and that of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster).
	It is well documented that ambush marketing has been an issue at previous Olympic games. At the 1992 Barcelona games, Reebok paid $700 million only to find Nike sponsoring the winning basketball team's press conference and one of the competitors covering up his Reebok logo. At the 1996 Atlanta games, however, the issue really threatened to overwhelm the Olympics. As a result, subsequent summer and winter games have included provisions to prevent ambush marketing and to protect the rights of official sponsors. That is important as LOCOG, the event manager, needs to raise approximately £1.5 billion, which will come from three main funding streams. Funding of £550 million will come from the IOC, £310 million will come from ticket sales, an extra £100 million will come from other sources, and £510 million will come from sponsorship raised by LOCOG—hence the need for these regulations. Given that, as the hon. Member for Bath pointed out, any revenue surplus is reinvested, with 60 per cent. invested for the general benefit of sport in the UK and 20 per cent. going to the British Olympic Association, we wholeheartedly support that approach.
	I am therefore happy with the concept of anti-ambush marketing provisions and the protection of the London Olympics association. Across many sports, inside and outside the Olympic movement, that is the modern way—notably at recent cricket world cups, which have seen similar provisions. Set against that, however, all Members of the House will want voluntary organisations, community groups and sports clubs to benefit from hosting the 2012 Olympics. The key is to achieve that without compromising the protection put in place to safeguard the official sponsors. Amendment No. 2 seeks to achieve that.
	Voluntary organisations, community groups and sports clubs have several concerns. The London organising committee for the Olympic games, which already has the power to make blanket exemptions for specific groups, has said that it will not do that in the instance that we are considering and I thank the Minister for writing to confirm that after the Committee stage. There is a concern that the sponsorship of teams or individuals could be affected.
	It is also down to the accused to prove their innocence, which is difficult in some cases given the limited resources at their disposal. Fundraising on behalf of individual athletes may be compromised and voluntary or community groups that want to have an Olympics theme day could fall foul of the regulations. For example, I was contacted by Soul in the City, a religious group that engages young people in voluntary work to the benefit of local communities. It is a fantastic organisation, which everybody here would support. It wants to hold an Olympics theme day but is worried that doing so will contravene the regulations. That fear of contravening the regulations will deter smaller organisations from making use of the many opportunities that the games will bring.
	The commercial marketing elements of the Bill are undoubtedly necessary to prevent ambush marketing and exploitation. Previous Olympics, prior to the introduction of similar measures, have suffered. We also need to maximise the advertising revenue so that, after 2012, the maximum amount of money can be returned to sport.
	However, the 2012 Olympics have been marketed as an event that will benefit the whole of the UK. Thanks to the hype that surrounds the games, anticipation is understandably high. Every hon. Member will want schools, sports clubs, community groups and voluntary organisations to derive the maximum benefit from hosting the games. All those organisations will want to use the Olympics to bolster fundraising, raise awareness and get more people involved. There is no prospect of those groups making personal gains. I urge the Minister to go into some detail in his response to explain the exact processes and safeguards that will protect those groups. There cannot be a single hon. Member who does not want that to be achieved.
	In speaking about amendment No. 5, I should like to take over where my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) left off in Committee. In Committee, the hon. Member for Bath tabled an amendment to clause 18(5)—clause 17(5) as it was then. Conservative Members supported it in debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke elicited from the Minister the welcome confirmation that there was no intention to apply the regulations to television.
	The hon. Member for Bath had similar success in establishing from the Minister that newspapers and, indeed, the stands from which vendors operate, would also enjoy an exemption from any regulations issued under clause 18. We are grateful for the clarification on that. However, despite the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke to elicit similar assurances about magazines and radio, they were not forthcoming. Given that they are directly comparable to newspapers and television, surely it is right that the exemption from any regulations issued under clause 18 extends to them.
	I understand that those issues were subsequently raised at the meeting between representatives of the advertising industry and Department officials on 10 November. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that. At that meeting, officials also undertook to consider the case for extending the exemption from clause 18 regulations to mobile telephones and other forms of electronic media that might deliver advertisements.
	The amendment's object is therefore threefold. First, it would reflect in statute the commitments that the Minister made about newspapers and television in Committee. Secondly, it would extend those commitments to the comparable media of magazines and radio. Thirdly, its purpose is to tease out from the Minister the view at which the Government have arrived on mobile telephones and other electronic media, which should also be exempted from the regulations issued under clause 18.
	I know that the Minister is aware of many of those concerns and I thank him publicly for his assistance thus far. We discussed the issues at the helpful meeting at the Department on 21 November. I hope that, as a result of the amendments, he will welcome the opportunity to put the necessary reassurances on the record.

Don Foster: The group under consideration comprises a string of different amendments and I am the only hon. Member whose name is appended to each. The Minister and the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) can therefore rest assured that I support the amendments that they tabled.
	Amendment No. 2 is crucial because it was made clear at the outset that one of the central goals that we wanted to achieve in the 2012 London Olympics and Paralympics was
	"a lasting legacy for future generations in health, homes and jobs and, of course, sport sustainable legacy".
	That is a quote from the candidate file. An important factor will be the ability of voluntary and community organisations and sports clubs to capitalise on the games. We know of many examples of organisations that will use the Olympics as a vehicle for promoting voluntary action. They include the Waltham Forest volunteer centre, which plans to use the Olympics as a catalyst for expansion. Many organisations, such as the Stratford athletics and cycling club, will use them for increasing participation in sport. It is therefore crucial to ensure that we have regard to the desirability of promoting the interests of voluntary and community organisations and sports clubs.
	The Minister will not be surprised that I support Government amendments Nos. 19 and 20 because they are the same as those that I tabled in Committee. By withdrawing them, I gave the Minister the opportunity to bring them back and claim the credit. I welcome the fact that he has stuck to his commitment. They may not appear especially important since they simply change the word "may" to "shall", but they are none the less significant because it is clear that, for example, in advertising A-frames, it is important to have regard to amenity and public safety. As I pointed out in Committee, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is especially hot on those matters and insists that amenity and public safety are taken into account when local authorities and others decide whether to accept outdoor advertising and signs. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has produced a guidance note on that, so I was anxious to follow that Department's instructions in the case of the Olympics. The Minister assured us that he would consider that. He has done so and I am delighted that he has agreed that the matter is crucial.
	Amendment No. 4 is equally critical. As the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent pointed out, clause 18 describes the regulations that govern advertising in the vicinity of the London Olympic events. It gives the Secretary of State power to place restrictions on the physical locations of advertising about the games. However, in its current form, the measure does not provide a definitive start date by which the regulations come into effect. Many people therefore believed that it was important to include a clear date.
	We all accepted the need both to include regulations because that was part of the host city contract and to agree on when they would begin. The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent did not point out that, when we debated the matter in Committee, the Minister told us on 18 October that any regulations under clause 18 would not apply for longer than the Olympics period. That is from four weeks before the Olympic games to five days after the end of the Paralympic games. We were then told, interestingly;
	"If one reflects on what the IOC says, we are definitely not putting gold-plating into the Bill—if anything we are tending marginally towards the other side."
	The Minister added
	"we have gone no further than what the IOC asked us to do in terms of its technical manuals."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 18 October, 2005, c.78–84.]
	For some of us, it is rather difficult to check whether what the Minister said was entirely accurate. The technical manuals are somewhat different to get hold of. They seem to be locked away in safes to which only very few people have access. [Interruption.] The Minister says from a sedentary position that we must trust him and that he got that right. When I wrote to the Minister, along with the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent, I pointed out that we had managed to get hold of the code to the safe and that we had examined what the manuals said. The manuals say that the IOC requires host countries to apply restrictions on the physical location of advertising only for a maximum of two weeks before the Olympic games, not four.
	I was grateful that having written to the Minister, he graciously acceded to the slight error that he had made. In the letter that we received of 30 November, he said:
	"We accept that advertising regulations should not begin more than two weeks before the Olympic Games begin, as per IOC requirements".
	He repeated the phrase:
	"We want to be clear that we are not gold-plating this legislation."
	That was the position earlier, but if it is to be two weeks that will not be gold-plating.
	Given that the Minister has written in a letter precisely what he intends to do, it seems not unreasonable on this occasion for him to accept the amendments. They would simply put into the Bill what the Minister, somewhat belatedly, has accepted would be the right way forward. I look forward to the Minister's positive response to the amendments. I note that he points to his brief, which seems to indicate that we might be in for some success.
	I hope that we shall also have some success with the other amendments. Amendment No. 5 represents an attempt to ensure that a range of media should receive appropriate exemption from legislation regarding advertising in the vicinity of the games. The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent has made exactly the right point—there have been one or two exemptions but the scope should be widened. What would it be like for a member of the public to be reading a newspaper while standing in the vicinity of an Olympic event? Someone could be looking over that person's shoulder or, even worse, given that television cameras would be able to view it, someone could look through a television camera and see an advertisement in that newspaper. We are deeply concerned about this, and scope of the exemptions needs to be extended to include newspapers.
	What about someone who is holding out his mobile phone and on it, as is sadly the case these days, there are advertising images? That could be in contravention of advertising rules. What about someone who is listening to their portable radio? Let us say that it is on a commercial channel and an advertisement appears on it? Clearly, that could be a breach of the rules unless we have the right exemptions in respect of advertising within the vicinity of an Olympic event. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve.
	Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 relate to similar issues but focus on the consultation that will take place. It is surely right and proper that we have guarantees set out in the Bill about who will be consulted about the regulations, because a number of bodies must be consulted. A list appears in the Bill, but, sadly, all the people whom we think should appear are not included.. The Minister thought that we were on to quite a jolly good idea. In Committee, Madam Deputy Speaker—I am sorry that you were not able to join us in these exciting events—the Minister said:
	"The hon. Member for Bath made a point about consulting the advertising industry. He rightly pointed out that there is no requirement for the Secretary of State to do that, but I can give a commitment now from the Front Bench that we will do so. It would be foolish not to consult the industry."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 18 October 2005, c. 79.]
	We already have a list of bodies that are to be consulted, but the advertising industry is not on that list. The Minister has said that it would be foolish not to include it in the list of consultees, so it would be extremely strange if the Minister did not accept a modest amendment to include that industry in the list in the Bill. That is equally true of those people who have to vet advertisements. In particular, television advertisements must be prepared a long time in advance, so we need to be sure that those who are responsible for vetting such advertisements will be consulted. That is why amendment No. 7 refers to those who have a relevant responsibility for regulating the advertising industry. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to accept the amendment.
	I hope also that the amendment will provide the Minister with an opportunity to say a little more to those who are responsible for preparing advertising and for clearing advertising about what he has in mind with time scales. The Minister has had detailed consultations with representatives of the industry, which I know that they have welcomed. They have reminded him repeatedly of the long time scale that is needed, very often, to prepare advertisements. Some advertisements that the industry might be using in 18 months' time will already be in preparation. The industry needs to know when those advertisements might fall foul of the regulations once they come into force. It is crucial that those concerned are consulted. It is crucial also that they be given an assurance that the regulations will not come into effect in the immediate future. Every one of the amendments in this group is worthy of support by the Minister and by the House, and I hope that they will be given that support.

Maria Miller: I would like briefly to speak in support of amendments Nos. 2, 4 and 7. The Olympics is a unique opportunity in the history of our country to build not only sporting participation at grass-roots level and sporting excellence, but pride in our people, our country, our achievements and indeed our communities. We should all do a lot more of that.
	In Committee, the Minister stated strongly that he felt that the Bill as drafted would not deter communities, sports clubs and voluntary organisations from becoming fully involved in the Olympics in whatever way was felt fit and that the correct balance would be struck. While I of course take him at his word, the Bill does little to back that up and, with the greatest respect to him, it is highly unlikely that he will be in place throughout the life of the Bill. Therefore, I support the amendment to ensure that what is currently, according to the Minister, implicit in the Bill becomes a little more explicit and that LOCOG is required to have regard to the involvement of sports clubs and interest groups in what will be, I am sure, a historic event for our country.
	This is one of the most prestigious sporting events in the world and its value is widely appreciated among those who may be approached to be sponsors. Many worldwide sponsors, including Visa, which is a major employer in my constituency, have been sponsors since 1986, showing that we have quite a lot of repeat purchase in the market. The Government need to ensure that they maximise the benefits for the country in the broadest way, as well as protecting the interests of those sponsors. It is a two-way street. As the Minister agreed in Committee, it is a question of balance. There is an important balance to be struck. That has been reiterated by other third parties, including Arup in the report that it was commissioned to undertake in May 2002.
	We raised the issue in Committee. As I said, the Minister stated that sports clubs and other organisations could participate. Indeed, he went a little further and said that they would receive "class exemptions", but I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) that, as a result of discussions with LOCOG, it has become clear subsequently that the blanket exemptions may not be as forthcoming as the Minister originally anticipated. That has served to underpin the growing concern among differing communities and sports groups that their role may be somewhat squeezed.
	We have heard from my hon. Friend about community groups such as Soul in the City and the YMCA, which share our concern that the Bill could undermine their good plans to involve youth in our communities, particularly in London, in building sports involvement as part of the Olympics as a whole. I have taken the opportunity to speak to a number of major worldwide sponsors and there is a lot of agreement that the community dimension of the games is vital and something that they will pursue vigorously.
	The Minister may want to consider the fact that, just as ambush marketing can undermine the value of sponsorship, so our communities and sporting organisations can feel marginalised by their treatment within this historic event. That is something that is well worth considering. He may wish to pursue that matter, as I have, in conversations directly with some of the sponsors, because it was most enlightening.
	Community groups can benefit from involvement in the Olympics in many ways, including through fund-raising events for teams. We must ensure that we involve every resident of our country, not just those living within the M25 or in the vicinity of the locations for the sporting events, in promoting grass-roots sports. The Bill is not explicit in its commitment to non-commercial, voluntary organisations. The amendment makes the Minister's verbal reassurances much more tangible and would provide a hook for those organisations to lobby LOCOG to agree a framework within which they can operate in support of the games. That will help many organisations such as the ones we have spoken about and others to plan their contributions to this historic celebration with a little more certainty.
	On amendment No. 7, the elements of the Bill that relate to advertising and marketing are highly regulated. As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent and the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said, the IOC manuals relating to this aspect of the Bill are not freely available to us. While the Minister was kind enough to enable us to see extracts of those in Committee, they raised as many questions as they answered. He confirmed that the manuals would be subject to change until a date that has not yet been confirmed. Amendment No. 7 would ensure that, if a change is required in the manuals or in any aspect of the Bill that relates to advertising and marketing, the industry will be consulted. Any unforeseen impact on business could undermine not just the role of businesses and marketing in the Olympics, but the economic benefit of the Olympics for our country.
	My objective in speaking today is simple. We need to ensure that the London Olympics benefits as many people as possible and that we strike the right balance, on which we are rather short of the mark at the moment.

Richard Caborn: This group of amendments relates to the regulations that will be put in place under clause 18 to control advertising in the vicinity of Olympic venues. The provisions are a direct result of the requirements of the IOC and the promises that we have given in signing the host city contract. They are measures that will make an important contribution to the viability and success of the London games.
	What I am also clear about, and what I have tried to provide reassurance about in Committee, is that we intend to take a reasonable and proportionate approach to the IOC's requirements. That means adopting a flexible and balanced approach and ensuring the regulations are appropriate for each and every venue.
	Amendment No. 2 would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of promoting the interests of voluntary and community organisations and sport clubs when making advertising regulations under clause 18. I understand the sentiments behind the amendment. I share the desire of the hon. Members for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) and for Bath (Mr. Foster) to ensure that the games in 2012 benefit all sections of society and all parts of the country.
	As the IOC made clear in its memorandum to the Bill's Standing Committee, the rationale behind the requirements to control advertising is to maintain clean venues and to prevent the unauthorised commercial exploitation of the games. The memo states that
	"all venues must be free of commercial, political or religious advertising".
	While that statement does not explicitly refer to advertising by voluntary or community groups, I know that the IOC would not want us to create a situation where its clean venue policy is compromised. However, before I am accused of being unreasonable by inhibiting the good work of voluntary and community groups, I should reassure hon. Members that subsection (7)(b) of clause 18 allows for authorised advertising within the vicinity of Olympic venues and that we will consider the case for allowing some forms of advertising by voluntary or community groups.
	I can absolutely see the case for allowing some voluntary or sporting organisations to be able to hand out flyers to people leaving Olympic venues in order, for example, to encourage them to become sports volunteers in their community, or to visit their local sports hall to give handball a try for the first time and to gain that experience. However, that sort of activity must be done in a measured and controlled way if we are to maintain the IOC's clean venue policy and ensure the viability and success of both the London and future games. Clause 18(7) is the best way to make that happen, so I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
	Amendment No. 4 would include in the Bill a defined time limit during which the advertising regulations can apply. Clause 18(6) already requires that the regulations establish the period for which they will apply, and that they may apply only for such a period as is necessary to comply with the requirements of the host city contract. As I said earlier, we are determined to ensure that we apply those requirements in a sensible and reasonable way. In Committee, I said that the advertising regulations would not apply for longer than the Olympics period, which the Bill defines as starting four weeks before the opening ceremony.
	Having discussed this issue further with the IOC, I can confirm that any advertising restrictions will be in place two weeks before the opening ceremony at the absolute earliest, as the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said. In reality, I envisage that the restrictions will apply for a much shorter period, especially for venues that host only one or two days-worth of competition. Given the variety of time periods for which the restrictions will apply, I do not think it sensible to specify in the Bill the maximum period for which the regulations can apply. However, I hope that the Bill's existing provisions—particularly clause 18(6)—and the clear assurances that I have given will reassure the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent that we intend to take a reasonable approach, and that he will withdraw his amendment.
	Amendment No. 5 would require advertising regulations to provide a specific exemption for advertising on television and radio and in newspapers and magazines.

Richard Caborn: That shows that, had the hon. Gentleman waited for those pearls of wisdom to fall from my lips, he would not have needed to intervene. I hope that, in the light of my reassurance, the amendment will be withdrawn.
	Finally, I turn to amendments Nos. 6 and 7, which would require the Secretary of State to consult representatives of the advertising industry before drawing up regulations under clause 18, and before varying the list of words and phrases in schedule 3. The advertising industry will obviously take a keen interest in the new advertising regulations and any changes to the words and phrases listed in schedule 3. I put on the record that we shall consult the advertising industry in drawing up regulations under clause 18—as we have done in drawing up the Bill—and in making any amendments to the lists of words and phrases in schedule 3. I draw hon. Members' attention to clause 22, which, among other things, requires the Olympic delivery authority to liaise with the people likely to be affected by regulations expected to be made under clause 18.
	The advertising industry will not be the only stakeholders affected by the advertising regime; local businesses and residents, for example, may also have an interest in it. I am not sure, therefore, that it is helpful to widen the Bill's existing list of consultees, as it could never be exhaustive. In my view, the Bill contains sufficient safeguards to ensure that the interests of the advertising industry and of others are considered, and that their voices are heard. The Government and LOCOG have already established a very good dialogue with the advertising industry, and we shall continue to ensure they are fully engaged in the development of regulations under clause 18, and in any changes made to the list of words and phrases in schedule 3. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
	I turn to the question of the ambush market and exempting voluntary organisations and sports clubs from restrictions. Amendment No. 2 applies only to clause 18, which deals with advertising in the vicinity of Olympic venues. Under schedule 3, which we shall debate later, we have provided that LOCOG can authorise people to associate themselves with the games. We should not create a loophole that can be exploited, but I do envisage voluntary community groups being given certain authorisation. We considered this very issue in drafting the Bill, but we came to the conclusion that creating such a blanket exemption would provide a very wide defence that could be open to abuse. For example, we might want to allow all local junior athletics clubs to associate themselves with the games; on the other hand, we might not want major football teams such as Manchester United to do so.
	We have sought to address this issue by giving LOCOG the ability to grant the authorisations provided for in paragraphs 4 and 5 to schedule 3. The amendments that we made in Committee allow LOCOG to make class exemptions, and require it to maintain a public register of people, and of classes of people, who are authorised to associate themselves with the games. Those amendments were tabled with schools and voluntary organisations specifically in mind.
	I undertake to consider exempting mobile phones from the advertising restrictions when the regulations are made. We intend to be reasonable in our approach to regulations made under clause 18, but as was made clear in Committee, between now and 2012 there will be considerable advances in technology and in the ways of the ambush market. I have given a commitment in respect of newspapers, magazines, radio and television, but I cannot provide a blanket exemption for mobile telephony at this stage. Although I can reassure the hon. Member for Bath that the mobile services currently available will almost certainly be exempt, we must future-proof this provision by leaving it somewhat open-ended, so that we can deal with any advances in technology between now and 2012.

Don Foster: Before the Minister moves on to the two extremely exciting Government amendments, I should point out that although he talked about his commitment to consulting the industry about the development of regulations under clause 18, he did not deal with the reference in amendment No. 7 to consulting
	"those who have a relevant responsibility for regulating the advertising industry".
	Surely the Minister accepts that, for example, the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre needs to be consulted on the regulations, not least because otherwise, it could pre-clear an advertisement that is subsequently seen to fall foul of the new regulations. Presumably, it could even be sued as a result of such pre-clearing. Will the Minister clarify that point?

Richard Caborn: I would expect the BACC to be consulted, but let me put this issue into context. We are talking about a national organisation, LOCOG, which is responsible to the IOC. Its current chairman—hopefully he will continue as chairman through to 2012—is Lord Coe, who is supported ably by Keith Mills. These people will not go out of their way to take the draconian steps that some Members have suggested this evening. We are giving LOCOG powers which we believe are commensurate with its fulfilling its obligations to the IOC. I am sure that those people will interpret the powers that they have been given and the actions that they can take with common sense. There will be consultation and we shall take a common-sense attitude to it.
	We have debated bearing down on the games' cost implications for the council tax, but we should remember that they will also provide massive income. In order to reassure the main sponsors and to maximise the revenue stream from them, we must ensure, for example, that we provide clean stadiums. The Government and LOCOG have a duty—not just to the IOC but to council tax payers in London and to others who will finance the games—to ensure that we deliver on these issues.
	We tabled Government amendments Nos. 19 and 20 after the constructive debate in Committee of an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bath. He takes great credit for these amendments, although I wish my officials had changed the odd word or two and given the Government greater ownership of the amendments. In any case, I concede that the hon. Gentleman or his researcher drafted the amendments.
	Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 would require the Secretary of State to have regard to amenity and public safety when drawing up advertising and street trading regulations under clauses 18 and 24. I agree with comments made in Committee that strengthening the requirement to have regard to amenity and public safety will ensure that the regulations are appropriate and fitting for each and every venue. I would like to thank the hon. Gentleman for provoking the debate in Committee and am pleased that we are able to come back with these amendments to the Bill at this stage.

Don Foster: I shall leave the Minister to comment on the Government amendments and concentrate on amendment No. 15.
	All hon. Members will be aware that from the beginning we have wanted every nation and region of this country to participate in and benefit from the Olympic and Paralympic games of 2012.
	We appear to have done much business in Committee on 18 October, as every reference I have made to Committee has been from that date. It is therefore appropriate to cite the Minister's comments on this issue:
	"The 2012 Olympic competitions will take place across the country, and every region will have the opportunity to benefit and to capitalise on them."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 18 October 2005; c. 138.]
	We all agree with that. In Loughborough, Bath and Sheffield, we are all looking forward to all the nations and regions benefiting from the games. For those of us who live in England, the regional development agencies will have a crucial role to play in helping to facilitate the participation of the regions and sub-regions. Therefore, nobody would be surprised to see that clause 35 states:
	"The purposes of a regional development agency (listed in section 4 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 (c. 45)) shall include the purpose of preparing for the London Olympics."
	That is right and proper and I am delighted that it is the case. However, hon. Members who have studied the Bill will note that the clause also states:
	"But a regional development agency shall not do anything by virtue only of subsection (1) except at the request of the Olympic Delivery Authority."
	In other words, the RDAs, which should play a key role in helping the regions and sub-regions to prepare for the Olympic games, will be able to do so only if they are authorised by the ODA. The ODA will have an iron grip on RDAs' ability to prepare for the Olympics.
	The RDAs have become increasingly concerned by clause 35, largely because—I confess—I kept drawing it to their attention and asking what they thought about it. They believe that it could limit their scope in preparing for the games. They are concerned about the possible confusion over the relative powers and leverages of the respective parties involved. They are concerned about the perceived leadership role given to the ODA over regional involvement in the games, instead of a co-ordinating role. The RDAs are also concerned about the potential funding consequences if the ODA asks them to do things outside their normal corporate plans or funding limits.
	I have no doubt that the Minister will assure me that the RDAs need not be concerned, but I hope that he will spell out in some detail how he sees the relationship between the RDAs and the ODA operating. We already know that the RDAs are working actively to promote participation and involvement in the games and I hope that the Minister will reassure me that that work will not be put in jeopardy.
	If the RDAs are to be in some way limited by a body, should it be the ODA? The ODA is largely responsible for the major infrastructure work and transport plans, and in some parts of the country the RDAs will be involved. The South West of England Regional Development Agency, for example, will be involved in the infrastructure in Weymouth, where the sailing will take place. It may also be involved in work around the beautiful city of Bath, because of our potential involvement. But the RDAs will want to be involved in far more than the necessary structural work.
	LOCOG is the other body with a crucial role to play and hon. Members who did not have the chance to participate in our deliberations in Committee may not know where it fits in on the wonderful diagrams that we received from the Minister. LOCOG will have a nations and regions sub-committee, led by Charles Allen. We all admire the work that he did in helping us to win the bid and I am sure that we will admire the work that he will do chairing that reinvigorated and reformed nations and regions sub-committee.
	It is interesting to note that when the sub-committee had its first meeting recently, it described its remit. At its inauguration, Charles Allen said that
	"this group has a vital role in making sure that nations and regions really benefit from London's Olympic Bid".
	According to a media release, the sub-committee then discussed issues including how best to engage people across the UK in the bid; how the business and sporting benefits could be put in reach for everyone, including tourism, jobs, contracts, sporting events and more; links with arts,. culture and education; auditing the regional facilities available for use in the run-up to the 2012 games; and providing practical advice on applying for and running preparation camps for the games. That is the remit of a LOCOG sub-committee, yet those things sound remarkably like many of the areas of responsibility of RDAs.

Richard Caborn: This group of Government amendments addresses a very constructive point made by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) in Committee and a smaller drafting point that we noticed afterwards. We are very magnanimous this evening, if I may say so.
	Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 are necessary to allow the commencement of clause 37 on Royal Assent. Clause 37 applies the provisions of the Bill as appropriate to Northern Ireland. Thus clause 37 on Northern Ireland will be brought into line with clause 36 on Scotland, which will commence on Royal Assent.
	Amendment No. 16 follows the suggestion made by the Liberal Democrats in Committee that the short title should include a specific reference to the Paralympic games. I indicated in Committee that I agreed with that principle, as a central part of our bid was that the London Olympics would be an inclusive games. As many hon. Members know, London staged the first Paralympics in 1948, and we want to ensure that the 2012 Paralympics are the best so far.
	I could not accept the amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats in Committee because it was important to get the IOC's view on the exact wording—[Interruption.] I hear laughter from the hon. Member for Bath. I promised to consider the issue and my officials have been in touch with the IOC. The result is the proposed amendment to make the short title the "London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill".

Hugh Robertson: Government amendments Nos. 25 and 26 are not contentious, and Government amendment No. 16 has the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I should like publicly to thank the Minister for fulfilling the promise that he made in Committee to introduce such amendments on Report and, indeed, to join in the general congratulations to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on proposing them in the first place.
	As I said in Committee, I should like to add my strong support to the proposals in amendment No. 16. Paralympic sport has been moving up the sporting agenda considerably in recent years. As hon. Members on both sides of the House will be aware, at the 2004 Athens Paralympic games, the Great British team finished second in the medals table, with 94 medals, including a staggering total of 35 golds. The team achieved medals in 11 sports, and in doing so, met the target set by Phil Lane of the British Paralympic Association. It is only right, therefore, that Paralympic sport is recorded as part of the Bill. Once again, I reiterate my full support.

Don Foster: Earlier, we discussed another amendment, the subject of which had been proposed in Committee by the Liberal Democrats, and the Minister went away to check it and has returned this evening with such an amendment. He was somewhat churlish in his attack on his own civil servants for not returning with a slightly differently worded amendment on that occasion. So I hope that, on this occasion, he will have the good grace to thank his civil servants who have suggested an amendment that is marginally different from the one that I proposed in Committee—the word "games" has been added. I congratulate the Minister and his civil servants on their ingenuity.
	I am genuinely delighted that—having consulted the IOC—as the Minister found it necessary to do and clearly did—he is willing to accept such an amendment and to do what no one disputed from the outset: give equal emphasis to the Olympic and Paralympic games. As I said in Committee, it worth remembering that Seb Coe, who deserves a great deal of praise for his role in achieving our success in getting the games, said on 29 August:
	"We won our bid as one bid for both the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games."
	I am delighted that that fact will now be reflected in the Bill's title.
	Accepting such an amendment and placing equal emphasis on the Paralympic and Olympic games emphasises the responsibility on all of us to ensure that the games, London and the UK will be standard bearers for inclusion. We must place huge emphasis on ensuring that both the Olympic and the Paralympic games and all the facilities that relate to their provision are generally accessible to disabled people.
	We have not had an opportunity on Report to discuss accessibility for disabled people, but the Minister will be well aware that there are continuing concerns about the need for more action in making transport facilities in London, venues and so on more friendly for disabled users. He shares my concern about that and has made assurances about it, but I hope that proposing amendment No. 16 to give equal emphasis to the Paralympic games will also remind him of the promises and commitments that he has made in respect of ensuring appropriate facilities for disabled people throughout the period of the Olympic and Paralympic games.

Introduction
	1 In this Schedule—
	"the Authority" means the Olympic Delivery Authority,
	"transfer scheme" means a scheme under section [Olympic Delivery Authority: transfer schemes], and
	"specified person" means a person specified in section [Olympic Delivery Authority: transfer schemes](3).
	Obligation to assist Secretary of State
	2 The Authority and the specified persons shall on request give the Secretary of State information or assistance in connection with a direction to prepare a transfer scheme which the Secretary of State has given or may give.
	Content of transfer scheme 3 (1) A transfer scheme may, in particular, make provision in connection with land.
	(2) In particular, a transfer scheme may—
	(a) require the grant of an estate, interest or right;
	(b) require the creation of an estate, interest or right for the purpose of being transferred;
	(c) provide for transfer on financial or other terms;
	(d) impose liabilities on the Authority;
	(e) impose liabilities on the transferor.
	4 A transfer scheme—
	(a) may transfer property, rights or liabilities whether or not they would otherwise be capable of being transferred,
	(b) may transfer rights and liabilities under an enactment, and
	(c) may dispense with a requirement for consent (whether arising for an enactment, an instrument or an agreement).
	5 In specifying property, rights or liabilities to be transferred a transfer scheme—
	(a) may use any manner of description (which may include reference to criteria specified in the scheme or to be determined in accordance with the scheme),
	(b) may provide for exceptions, and
	(c) may provide for the division of property, rights and liabilities in a manner specified in the scheme or to be determined in accordance with the scheme.
	6 A transfer scheme may make provision—
	(a) for the resolution of disputes as to the effect of the scheme to be referred to arbitration, and
	(b) for a certificate given by an arbitrator as to the effect of the transfer scheme to be conclusive.
	7 A transfer scheme may make consequential, incidental or transitional provision and may, in particular—
	(a) provide for anything done by or in relation to a specified person to have effect as if done by or in relation to the Authority,
	(b) permit anything (which may include legal proceedings) which is in the process of being done by or in relation to a specified person when a provision of a transfer scheme takes effect, to have effect as if done by or in relation to the Authority, and
	(c) may provide for a reference to a specified person in an agreement (whether written or not), instrument or other document to be treated as a reference to the Authority.
	Exclusions
	8 (1) Transfer of property, rights or liabilities under a transfer scheme shall be disregarded for the purposes of a provision of a contract or other instrument which refers to transfer or disposal (whether so as to confer a right to terminate or vary or otherwise).
	(2) Nothing in a transfer scheme shall give rise, in relation to land or an interest or estate in land or other property, to any of the following—
	(a) a right of reverter,
	(b) a right of pre-emption,
	(c) a right of forfeiture,
	(d) a right to compensation, or
	(e) an option or similar right.
	9 Nothing in a transfer scheme relating to rights in connection with a contract of employment shall affect the operation of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (S.I. 1981/1794).
	Modification of scheme
	10 (1) This paragraph applies where—
	(a) a specified person has made a transfer scheme, but
	(b) a transfer under the scheme has not yet taken effect.
	(2) The Secretary of State may—
	(a) require the specified person to modify the transfer scheme, in so far as it relates to the transfer, in such manner as the Secretary of State may specify,
	(b) specify the date by which the modified scheme is to be prepared and submitted to the Secretary of State, and
	(c) specify a date on which the modified scheme is to take effect if approved by the Secretary of State.
	(3) The Secretary of State may not require a specified person to modify a scheme unless—
	(a) he has consulted any person whom he thinks may be affected by the modification, and
	(b) the Mayor of London consents.'. —[Mr. Caborn.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Don Foster: I am grateful for the Minister's introductory remarks and some of the assurances that he has put on the record, which go a long way towards resolving our concerns. Nevertheless, I hope that he will accept that it is necessary for me to try to tease out a few more assurances from him as I discuss the amendments.
	I have no problems whatsoever with Government amendments Nos. 21 and 22. I do not think that I have a problem with Government amendment No. 23, but I might have. I would be grateful for some clarification of that amendment because its effect will depend very much on the way in which its words are interpreted. The phrase
	"as an incidental inclusion in"
	could have many different meanings. The amendment makes it clear that the wording comes from the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Section 31 of the Act states:
	"Copyright in a work is not infringed by its incidental inclusion in an artistic work, sound recording, film, broadcast or cable programme."
	However, the phrase "incidental inclusion" is not defined in that Act, and it is not being defined in the Bill.
	No doubt, the Minister has researched the matter thoroughly and will be aware that the leading case on the definition of "incidental inclusion" is the 2003 Court of Appeal judgment in the case of the Football Association Premier League Ltd. v. Panini UK Ltd. The court decided that the test of "incidental inclusion" should consider why a particular reference had been made, and whether that was for commercial or artistic reasons. Panini sold stickers of football players with photos showing them in their premier league kit, including the premier league logo. It was decided that that was not incidental, as the use of the logo was essential to the object for which the images were created. Although intentional and deliberate inclusion of copyright work may still be incidental, if the work in which it is included is intended to serve a commercial purpose it is unlikely to be deemed incidental.
	Will the Minister give us a clear indication of the definition that he has in mind for the word "incidental" in the legislation? He may find it helpful to look at that judgment, as it considers the motives for incidental inclusion. As he rightly pointed out, what matters is whether someone is seeking to make an unfair commercial gain for exploitative purposes. He may find that interpretation helpful and he may wish to put it firmly on the record. If that is the case, we would support him as long as we do not implement such an interpretation too harshly, as we could limit many activities if we are not careful. If we go too far down the commercial route we could create difficulties for television broadcasts. For example, a programme may be commercially motivated because it wishes to make money from advertising transmitted during the broadcast. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister provided clarification, either now or later.
	I wish to focus on the amendments on editorial content. The rules governing editorial content and the London Olympics association right are problematic because they are vague. The Minister provided some clarification today, and he had a second bite at the cherry in Committee, where he amended the wording of the Bill. However, there is still room for improvement. In Committee, the Minister explained that paragraph 8 of schedule 3 is designed to ensure that normal media editorial activities are not curtailed by the London Olympics association right. The provision describes editorial usage that is exempt from the rules governing the London Olympics association right—namely, the publishing or broadcasting of information or reports on the Olympics.
	The position appears to be clear until one considers the many permutations of editorial usage that are not included in the definition. Bona fide editorial activity could include news columns, features, readers' letters, reviews, comment and analysis in newspapers. In broadcasting, it could include documentaries, drama, children's programmes, travel programmes, panel discussions and news. To encompass all aspects of legitimate editorial usage, we tabled amendment No. 10, which refers to
	"any editorial usage including without limitation".
	Such usage would be exempt from the regulations governing the London Olympics association right. That is a simpler and more effective approach that prevents any form of editorial usage from being inadvertently omitted from the list. Time after time, the Minister has said that he does not like lists because something can always be added or removed from them. I have solved the problem with wording that removes the need for a list. However, the amendment does not risk opening the floodgates for illegitimate association with the Olympics, because it maintains a clear distinction between editorial and advertising usage.
	Amendment No. 13 follows on from amendment No. 10 as it, too, attempts to ensure that all legitimate editorial association with the Olympics is not regarded as an infringement of the association right. Paragraph 8 of schedule 3 permits representation of the Olympics in information about the London Olympics. However, in the course of their editorial activities, the media may publish information about other events and activities in which the London Olympics are mentioned but are not the subject. For example, a news item about London transport could refer to the Olympic games, although the games are not the subject of that information. Similarly, a feature article about sport in the national curriculum could refer to the Olympics, but such a report is not about the Olympics. Such usage should be covered by paragraph 8 by virtue of its editorial status, not by virtue of its content or the nature of the subject matter. Amendment No. 13 allows this by removing the requirement that information must be about the Olympics and, in order to ensure that all bona fide editorial usage is safeguarded, inserts
	"including news and current affairs".
	Amendment No. 14 builds on amendment No. 13 and allows information associated with the Olympics to be used specifically
	"for the purposes of criticism and review".
	Adding this category of editorial usage would ensure that further material such as comment pieces, readers' letters and general reviews such as entertainment, leisure or travel are brought under the protective umbrella of paragraph 8.
	Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 have been tabled to remove the possibility that a statutory body, LOCOG, could have a say in determining what constitutes legitimate editorial content. The Bill confines exemptions to the London Olympics association right to representation
	"as a necessary incident of publishing or broadcasting"
	reports or information. As LOCOG is the grantor and enforcer of the association right, the Bill implies that LOCOG will apply paragraph 8, advising on and adjudicating editorial content.
	It is worrying that any statutory body should play a part in controlling editorial activities. How can such a situation pertain? The Newspaper Society is deeply concerned about it and states:
	"For a statutory body to have any role in determining the content of a newspaper's editorial material would be without precedent and would represent an utterly unacceptable incursion into the freedom of the press, and a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998 as being contrary to Article 10 of the Convention."
	The Minister looks surprised, but he has had meetings with representatives of the media. ITN believes the paragraph introduces
	"an unacceptable level of external intrusion by a statutory body into editorial freedoms".
	I hope the right hon. Gentleman takes those concerns seriously. We have tabled amendments Nos. 11 and 12 to remove the contentious wording and substitute the more neutral and legally certain specification that a representation must be "in the course" of publishing news or information.
	It is important that we clarify the legislation governing editorial content and the Olympics association right in order to allow the media to perform their crucial role of informing and inspiring the public. Stifling the media's ability to report the London Olympics will damage the games as a whole and inevitably lead to a less successful games—a situation that we are all keen to avoid.
	I fully support amendments Nos. 8 and 9, which are practical and pragmatic. For a long time there has been uncertainty about when various provisions will come into effect. The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) proposes a sensible time scale. In Sydney, the time scales were even shorter. Knowing that the Minister is keen to get on as quickly as possible, the hon. Gentleman proposes a slightly earlier start date than I was expecting, but the amendments make eminent sense and I wish him luck in persuading the Minister to accept the good sense of what he is about to propose.

Richard Caborn: I beg to move, That the Bill be read the Third time.
	I shall start by thanking all the members of the Standing Committee and all hon. Members who have taken part in today's debate. The Bill has received thorough scrutiny, which has been conducted in a fair-minded fashion throughout. I am particularly grateful for the consistent support provided by the hon. Members for Faversham and Mid-Kent and for Bath. They have been quick to understand and welcome the principles behind the Bill, and they have kept me on my toes throughout.
	I am also grateful for the support provided by the devolved Administrations. Hon. Members will be glad to note that on 10 November the Scottish Parliament gave its consent to those provisions in the Bill that trigger the Sewel convention, and I have taken the opportunity to place a copy of the relevant Scottish Executive memorandum, including the Sewel motion, in the Library of both Houses.
	On Third Reading, it is worth taking a step back from the detail to remind the House why we have introduced this Bill and why the Bill is so important to the success of the London Olympics. We need the Olympics to be on time and on budget, which is why we must get the ODA up and running quickly as the single body responsible for planning and construction.
	It is great that we now have a dynamic leadership team in place in Jack Lemley and David Higgins. I wish them both well. They have a proven track record in delivering huge projects, and they can now get on with the preparatory work that needs to be done on the setting up of the ODA. To do the rest of the job, they need the full set of powers and functions that the Bill provides in order to plan and construct venues and facilities, to co-ordinate the transport plan, and to maintain a clean Olympic environment. Through the Bill, we are able to ensure that the ODA is fully accountable to Ministers and to Parliament.
	The ODA will be at the centre of the Olympic project for the next seven years. After 2012, it will have a key role in helping to reconfigure Olympic venues and the Olympic park to ensure that the games result in real and lasting benefits for east London and for the whole United Kingdom.

Hugh Robertson: It is exactly five months since 6 July, when we won the games bid in Singapore. I want to finish my remarks on the Bill where I started on Second Reading by congratulating all those who worked so hard to bring the Olympic games to London. I say that not because it is a nice thing to say at the end of the passage of a piece of legislation but because I genuinely mean it. I pay tribute to Lord Coe, Keith Mills and everybody involved in the bid at London 2012. I congratulate the other shareholders: the Government, particularly the Prime Minister, who did so much in the days running up to the bid, the Secretary of State and the Minister, who has dealt with the Bill as it has gone through the House; the Mayor of London; and the British Olympic Association, especially the Princess Royal, who did particularly well in Singapore and has not, in some quarters, received the thanks that she deserves.
	I also hope—again, I say this very honestly—that the Minister will take back to his Department my thanks and those of my party to his civil servants, who have worked extremely hard on the bid and on the Bill as it has gone through the House.
	Delivering a successful Olympic games in 2012 will not be easy, and there is no doubt that it is a considerable challenge, but the Bill's Third Reading marks a significant moment in delivery on the pledges made to the IOC in Singapore. Although the Bill is not lengthy in parliamentary terms, it is quite complex, setting up a regional development agency in the Olympic Delivery Authority in the first half and establishing the ground rules for the commercial media rights in the second. I am pleased that we have found so much common ground, have been able to improve the Bill, and have been able to maintain cross-party support.
	As the Bill leaves our House, I have only three outstanding concerns. To be honest, I must say that not all of them relate to the Bill. First, sport as a whole must benefit from our hosting the games in 2012. I think that there is a good deal of cross-party agreement on that, but it is not yet entirely clear how it will be achieved.
	I should like effort to be concentrated on three elements. Much good work has already been done on reform of the organisation of sport—I commend the Minister for that—but there is more to be done, along the lines of what has been suggested by the Independent Sports Review. We also need the funds that are necessary to meet the British Olympic Association's objective of moving us from 10th to fourth in the medal table. There are also implications for non-Olympic sports, particularly mass-participation sports. It is feared that funds will be diverted from them to the Olympics.
	Our second main concern, which has been discussed at length today, is the impact of cost overruns on the London council tax payer. Finally, there is a small issue that I fear may cause problems in the other place: the reversal of the presumption of innocence.
	If the Government are prepared to offer concessions on any of those three outstanding issues, it will ease the Bill's passage. Having said that, I bid it fair passage. I thank the Minister and his civil servants for what they have done, and reaffirm my party's support for the Bill and, indeed, the games. The Olympics are the most unique historic and valuable asset in world sport. I am delighted and, like sport-lovers throughout the country, not a little excited that London is to host the games in 2012.

Lyn Brown: For me, the central issue in the debate is whether the 2012 games are remembered not just for providing a truly world-class event for London, but for giving a lifelong legacy to east London, to London generally and to the United Kingdom. I believe that the Bill augurs well for the delivery of successful games, on time and to budget. Like the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson), however, I have three remaining concerns. First, there is the question of who will be held to account for the delivery of the legacy of the games. Secondly, there is the lack of reference to local government, along with its implications. Thirdly, there are the local difficulties caused to residents and businesses.
	The physical legacy to my constituency is not in doubt. West Ham will look very different by 2012. Two thirds of the Olympic park and most of the facilities—including the athletes' village, the main stadium, the swimming pools, the media centre and the warm-up tracks—will be in Newham, and 18 of the 26 events will take place within 20 minutes' walk of Stratford station. We have been promised the creation of the largest capital-city park in Europe for 150 years, a park that will incorporate the venues but will also, symbolically and physically, unify communities. It will be the heart of a prestigious new development, Stratford City. The proposals will deliver more than 9,000 new homes in and around the Olympic park, with schools and health and community facilities to match. That is welcome news for my constituency and the surrounding area.
	Newham has an exceptionally young population: 41 per cent. of its inhabitants are under 25. It is a poor constituency, bordering to the west and north on areas that are also poor. All its key indicators are in the bottom 10 of the list drawn up by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The promised legacy of the Olympics and the Paralympics would provide a sustainable solution to the poverty and disadvantage experienced in my constituency and in other communities with similar social and economic indicators, and the Bill goes a long way towards embracing that aspiration.
	One of the difficulties that I have with the drafting of the Bill is that clause 4(3) states that
	"the Authority shall, wherever relevant— have regard to the desirability of maximising the benefits to be derived after the London Olympics from things done in preparation for them".
	Will the Minister emphasise and underline that commitment, so that the words
	"have regard to the desirability"
	appear a little less soft and a bit more enthusiastic and emphatic?
	We said in the bid that we would radically transform London's east end and, through this sporting spectacle, regenerate a poor inner-city area. I recognise that that will be a huge challenge, and to achieve it, we must be clear about whose job it is. Who is to be responsible for overseeing the delivery of the legacy? If I understand the situation correctly, neither the London organising committee for the Olympic games—LOCOG—nor the Olympic Delivery Authority owns the responsibility for delivering the legacy for the country. Individual organisations are responsible for the delivery of bits of it—for example, Sport England will be responsible for the sporting legacy, but which body will ensure that it is on track to deliver greater grass-roots participation? Who will be held accountable for the employment legacy, or for realising the health benefits? Who will be responsible for monitoring and scrutinising the different agencies charged with delivery of the various legacy plans?
	The reference in clause 4(3) is perhaps not designed to ensure the delivery of the greatest challenge to the games, namely the economic and social legacy. It was the whole package that prompted the huge support for the bid from ordinary Londoners and others, and we must not let them down. I hope that the Minister will consider establishing a formal mechanism and place official ownership of the responsibility for the legacy within the proposed delivery processes. The games are a catalyst to be seized or squandered. We need to plan for the social gains from the games, to set targets for the reduction of poverty, and to realise real social and economic change for the poorest in society from this huge investment.
	I get a sense of the potential of the legacy by considering the impact that the bidding process had on my constituency. As a councillor in the London borough of Newham, I led a two-year programme of sporting, cultural and community activity, using the pull of the Olympics to engage and inspire the community. By the end of the bidding process, there were clear, tangible benefits for the betterment of health, education and antisocial behaviour. For example, 43 per cent. of free swims were taken up by people in social groups D and E, and there were 64,000 attendances at Newham's Olympic summer of sport. The completion rates for exercise on prescription schemes went up from 34 to 52 per cent., and 40 new after-school clubs were founded around sport and physical activity. The number of sports coaches more than doubled, new disability sports clubs were established, and the West Ham Asians in Football programme was expanded. And 25 per cent. fewer young people were reported to the local magistrates court.
	There are many more similar examples, and if all that can be achieved by local authority leadership around the bid process alone, the social legacy of the games themselves could be truly life-transforming. Those schemes required funding and were achieved by a combination of mainstream and temporary funding. The gains were achieved by local government working in the community. This was not rocket science, and I am sure that examples such as those have been and will be replicated by other local authorities across the country.
	If we are to get real social and economic benefits from the games, local government must be integral to the planning and delivery of the soft outcomes for social and economic regeneration. In October 2000, the Government charged local government with the duty to provide for the economic, social and environmental well-being of its own areas. They did so because local government is best placed to deliver those objectives locally; it is part of its core business. We need to ensure that local government is at our Olympic table, leading on clearly drawn and resourced local renewal and regeneration strategies.
	The job of realising the legacy is too big for one tier of government, whether national, regional or local. The job can only be done successfully if all tiers of government and the voluntary, community and private sector work together in partnership towards the same objectives.
	We must remember that renewal and regeneration will come at a price for some in the area where the games are to be held. Local businesses will be displaced because of the need to create space for the Olympic park stadium. Estimates suggest that more than 300 businesses will be affected by the proposals. Companies are increasingly concerned by the action or, they feel, lack of action by the London Development Agency. Negotiations have been under way for a long time and no conclusions have yet been reached. That is placing reputable and thriving concerns in jeopardy, and it is not on. Surely the LDA must take immediate steps to assure the businesses concerned and to expedite relocation and compensation. If the LDA does not have the resources or capacity to undertake that role, I ask the Minister to act, and either to provide additional capacity or to take the responsibility from the agency.
	The games will also result in the demolition of the housing co-op at Clays lane, which was established in the early 1980s to address the lack of housing for young, single people in the east of London. Approximately, it houses about 450 tenants, who face an uncertain and unsettling future. Communication appears to have been sparse and not very comforting, with assurances made prior to the bid now apparently being watered down by the LDA. I ask the Minister again to hold the agency to account, and to ensure that those tenants are not disadvantaged by their relocation.
	If the legacy of the games is to be realised, we must plan for it, ensure that we know who is responsible for the delivery of the legacy and hold them to account to deliver on it. The challenges of east London are immense, but the opportunities of those challenges are in our grasp if we harness and resource all parties to deliver on them. Let us realise the potential of the games, and deliver a real legacy for generations.

Don Foster: In some parts of America, politicians can have their speeches read into the record without having to deliver them. In a sense, I wish that we had that opportunity, as my opening remarks echo entirely what the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) said. Rather than list all the people he listed, let me merely say that all those people deserve our thanks for the huge amount of work that they did to bring the Olympics and Paralympics to London in 2012. It was a fantastic team effort by a large number of dedicated and committed people, and one thing above all set our bid apart from everybody else's—its underpinning of Olympic and Paralympic ideals in relation to sporting activities, which could liberate and inspire people not only in this country but across the world.
	I also want to thank the Minister for his contribution and thank the Opposition parties for the role that we have played. It is important to place on record that a small but perhaps important part of the reason that we won the bid was the clear demonstration of all-party unity in backing it. I hope that our deliberations today, on Report and Third Reading, and the work done in Committee and on Second Reading indicate that that cross-party co-operation can continue while allowing the opportunity for constructive criticism when we disagree in certain areas. We have made splendid progress, however, in getting the Bill to this stage. Indeed, given that the Olympics afford a glorious opportunity for Britain, it is right that the Bill has had a smooth passage. It is equally important to recognise that progress has been made on so many other fronts, not only on the measure.
	It was fantastic to hear Denis Oswald, the chairman of the IOC's co-ordination commission for the games, say towards the end of August of the work on the Olympics here,
	"it could not have started on a better footing".
	A huge amount of work has already been done and more is under way. Compulsory purchase orders have been issued and LOCOG now has many staff. Many are experienced and were involved in the bid. The Go for Gold scratchcard is a huge success and has already raised more than £3 million. It is the most successful scratchcard of its type. We know about the Mayor's exciting proposals for the great rejuvenation and redevelopment of the east end of London.
	Much else has happened. Building work is under way at the Olympic park but that is also true in other parts of the country, such as Norwich, Sunderland, Edinburgh and Brighton. Betting has already started on how well different countries will do in the Olympics. I noted with interest that Lord Moynihan, who heads the British Olympic Association, has bet his Australian counterpart on how many gold medals their respective countries will win. The winner will provide bottles of Bollinger to the other. We shall see how that goes.
	However, much remains to be done. The Bill is important because it establishes the framework in which the work will be done, the way in which we ensure that the resources come in and the right bodies to make it happen. For example, we must provide appropriate protection for IOC and LOCOG sponsors against ambush marketing, inappropriate advertising and so on.
	There is a huge prize, if we get it right. We will invigorate our sporting nation, regenerate some of the most deprived areas in our country, improve the environment, thus setting sustainability standards for the future, showcase the country's excellence in arts and culture and—perhaps most important—unite the nation. That is an exciting prospect and the work that we have done on the Bill—the amendments and changes that we have made—ensure that we will progress and deliver a successful games.
	The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) is passionate about the games coming to London. She speaks passionately about the enthusiasm in her area for them and talks movingly of the way in which they will provide sustainable regeneration in her area. She is right to stress that. On other occasions, she has spoken about the way in which the games can raise the aspirations of the people that she represents. She summed it up today by saying that the Olympics will leave a life-transforming social legacy. That is true for West Ham and every other part of the country.
	It is interesting to note a recent survey, which showed that 68 per cent. of Londoners said that the games would bring long-term benefits. That statistic is reflected in many other parts of the country. The figure rose to 78 per cent. among 18 to 34-year-olds. Young people in particular understand the genuine benefit that can derive from the games.
	We have made a united, fantastic start on delivering the best ever Olympic and Paralympic games. There is a long way to go and I hope that the unity that we have experienced so far in the House will continue.

Richard Caborn: As I said earlier, it has been a privilege and pleasure to take the Bill through Parliament. The contributions on Third Reading show what the nation was feeling on 6 July. My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) encapsulated that. Many people stood in Trafalgar square, and some Members were with me in Singapore. I visited my French counterpart, Jean-Francois Lamour, in the hall in Singapore, and I had to squeeze past some 50 or 60 journalists to get to him. Steve Redgrave and David Beckham were involved on our behalf, but we had only three photographers in front of us. I thought, "The result has been leaked and we obviously haven't won." Jacques Rogge kept the world in suspense by delaying opening the envelope containing the result. I point out by way of an aside that as we speak, a silver letter-opener is being made for him, on which is engraved, "Please do not keep the world waiting in anticipation again." When Jacques Rogge finally opened that envelope, he said, "London." Until that moment, a lot of people who wanted us to win the bid did not quite believe that we could do so. Such enthusiasm added to the atmosphere in Trafalgar square and definitely to that in Singapore, and it has carried all the way through. When people look back in years to come, they will recognise that through this Bill, we have established a foundation for an Olympic games that has never been established before.
	The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I, along with others, travelled the world to speak to representatives of many of the cities that have hosted the Olympics. We asked one simple question: "What would you do differently if you hosted the games again?" They were very generous in giving advice and we have worked on the basis of it. The product is this Bill, which will deliver a structure that will address, for example, the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) about cost overruns. The framework that we have established will be cost-effective, and it is absolutely crucial that in the next 18 months, we get the company up and running, the various structures in place and the contracts laid. We must not get involved in crisis management; we must control the process from start to finish. If we do that, we will host a good games. Such an approach will also enable us to tackle seriously the other elements that make an Olympic games highly successful.
	One such element is legacy. Other Olympic games have had to resort to crisis management, and we ourselves have done so with certain big projects. We have learned from that. Avoiding the need for crisis management will give us the space in which to develop the games. Legacy, which the Olympic board controls, is a very important issue to which there are many strands: the built environment, the human environment, the sporting infrastructure, and the cultural infrastructure. I hope that after 2012, we will leave behind one of the best sporting infrastructures in the world. Other strands include participation and talent identification. We want the talented athlete scholarship scheme to find talented young people in our secondary schools not by chance but by design, and to maximise their potential for producing world-class performances. Unlike Steve Redgrave and Kelly Holmes, who were discovered by chance, we want such people to be discovered by design. We are instituting that scheme and the mentoring of young students, arranging the curriculum around such activities and taking them through the scheme as one. The Olympic board deals with many such legacy issues, and in turn it is responsible to this House and its organs, such as Select Committees. I am sure that we will deliver in this area.
	On betting, the IOC has asked us to look at that issue, but we have made it clear that we have no plans to legislate. We are discussing with the governing bodies how we can assist on the question of ticket-touting, particularly in the light of the electronic means by which touting is now carried out, such as via eBay.
	The momentum generated by the great euphoria of 6 July is still there throughout the country. If we can maintain it by developing cultural activities and grass-root sports projects throughout the UK—in the regions and through the devolved Administrations—we will have a lasting legacy that will be second to none.
	Many of us take seriously the narrative on which we won the games—which was reconnecting young people with sport through the five rings and the Olympic movement. While the Bill is about the delivery of the games by the UK, I believe that we have a responsibility to the Olympic movement and the world to use the great influence that we have through the Commonwealth, the European Union and many other institutions to achieve that aim. Seb Coe and those working with him hope that come 2012, we will deliver the narrative on which, according to the International Olympic Committee, we won the bid and bring young people back into sport through the Olympic movement.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Paul Burstow: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of medication reviews for older people. I do so because I believe that if good practice in medication review were to be the norm across the NHS, it could transform the lives of millions of people.
	At the moment, there are more than 3.6 million people over 75 taking at least one medication and 1.6 million taking four or more medications. On the evidence that I have, it is clear that most of them have never benefited from a review of their medication in the way that is envisaged in the national service framework for older people. Getting the dosage right, understanding the complex interplay of different medicines and making sure that medicines are taken at the right time can make a huge difference to people's health and quality of life. For some, simply getting medication right can be like turning the light back on—it can make a huge difference. For others, getting the medication right can be a matter of life or death.
	My purpose in having a debate on this issue is to press the Minister for more concerted action to realise the full potential of medication reviews. What do I mean by medication review? That is a good question, because there is no single agreed definition of what constitutes a medication review. However, there is a proposed definition. It comes from the medicines partnership and has been endorsed by the Department of Health. It says that a medication review is
	"A structured, critical examination of a patient's medicines with the objective of reaching an agreement with the patient about treatment, optimising the impact of medicines, minimising the number of medication related problems and reducing waste."
	I have long been concerned about the impact poor medication practice can have on the quality of life of older people. In particular, I still do not believe that enough is being done to stamp out the inappropriate use of medication in care homes. At its worst, the use of medication becomes restraint by chemical means, and that is elder abuse.
	According to the most recent figures from the Commission for Social Care Inspection, more than 5,700 of the 13,000 care homes in England either did not meet or almost met the national minimum standard for medication last year. Let us be clear that we are talking about a minimum standard. I acknowledge that those figures are a modest improvement on the previous year, but try telling that to the residents living in one of the homes who do not meet the minimum standard.
	I was even more worried to note that the National Care Standards Commission—the predecessor of the Commission for Social Care Inspection—pointed out in its report on medication that:
	"The majority of prescribed medicines will be supplied by a GP on a repeat basis at the request of care staff and not the service user."
	That places care staff in a powerful position to influence prescribing for good or for ill. In a briefing for today's debate, the Parkinson's Disease Society points out the need to review the medicine management standards, especially standard 9.1, which deals with self-medication. It wants to see greater clarity over the issue of timing of medication, and I strongly agree.
	In 2003, a study in the British Medical Journal concluded that older people in care homes received poorer medical care than those living at home, in terms of over-use of inappropriate or unnecessary drugs, poor monitoring of chronic disease and under-use of beneficial drugs. That is one of the reasons why regular medication review should be part of the process and why I welcomed the national service framework for older people medication standards.
	Although I support the standards, it must be said that international evidence suggests that annual reviews of prescriptions for elderly people, as proposed in the NSF, are inadequate. Harm can be done, and is done, in far less than a year. There is a huge gap between the intention of the Government's policy, which is to be applauded, and its implementation over the last few years since the NSF was published. That gap has been caused by a lack of clarity and insufficient incentives to deliver what is expected; in particular, the new GP contract does not provide the necessary incentives for more frequent reviews.
	Among the indicators in the quality and outcomes framework—QOF—for the contract, two specifically incentivise regular review of medication. The first is:
	"A medication review is recorded in the notes in the preceding 15 months for all patients being prescribed four or more repeat medicines."
	That is worth seven points. The second is:
	"A medication review is recorded in the notes in the preceding 15 months for all patients being prescribed repeat medicines."
	That is worth eight points. So the QOF says 15 months, yet the NSF talks about 12 months for people on fewer than four medications and six months for people on more than four medications. Neither actually sets out what qualifies as a medication review. Am I the only one who thinks there is a problem?
	Every time I have raised the issue with Ministers through written questions and in debate I have been left with the distinct feeling that the NSF medicine review standard has been quietly dropped. That impression was reinforced in February when the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), who was then a Minister in the Department of Health told me:
	"The quality and outcomes framework (QOF) indicator for medication reviews for people prescribed repeat medicines was developed by a group of independent experts who were commissioned by the British Medical Association and the NHS Confederation. The group developed QOF indicators using its own search of the evidence and did not necessarily use existing national service framework (NSF) standards. Although this means that the QOF indicators and NSF standards may not match entirely, meeting the QOF indicator will go a long way to helping practices meet the NSF standard and vice versa."—[Official Report, 3 February 2005; Vol. 430, c. 1119W.]
	That really beggars belief. It is optimistic, but when the Department was signing off the QOF why did not it ensure that the NSF standard would be achieved? What is the point of producing the NSF standard if it is not being used in that way?

Liam Byrne: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on securing this debate. He has indeed taken a long interest in the subject.
	Medicines are by far the most common form of medical treatment in the UK. People with long-term conditions, many of whom are older, are reliant on those medicines to stay healthy. In fact, 80 per cent. of people over the age of 75 take at least one prescribed medicine and 36 per cent. of them—just over a third—take four or more medicines each day. With that level of medicine prescribing comes the challenge of ensuring that people with long-term conditions, including those who are older, get the maximum possible benefit from that medicine, and the hon. Gentleman made that argument rather eloquently.
	Half of all people—not just older people—on regular treatment do not take their medicines as intended for a number of reasons. Problems with medicines may be the cause of as many as 10 to 15 per cent. of hospital admissions. So people need simple information and advice if they are going to get the best benefit from their medicines. They need to know what their medicines are for, how they work and how they need to take them. However, people also have their own health beliefs, which can affect the way that they take their medicines. That is why, as the hon. Gentleman said, involving people in decisions about how medication is taken is an important way in which we can help to ensure that they take medicines effectively. That explains why medication review is important. It is good that the hon. Gentleman has secured such a debate on the Floor of the House because the matter sometimes does not get the airtime that it deserves.
	A medication review occurs when a health professional reviews a patient's medicines. The health professional ensures that all medicines that would be of benefit are prescribed and that the various treatments work well together and do not cause problems. That might be done if a GP prescribes someone with repeat medicines, but there is also a place for more in-depth reviews in which a health professional sits down with a patient and discusses his or her medicines in detail. That might occur if someone is on an especially complex regime, or if a patient is experiencing problems. Such reviews are important, not least because they allow patients to ask questions about their medicines and to be more involved in any decisions that are taken.
	Given the importance of medicines to many people and the importance of medicine reviews, when we published the national service framework for older people in 2000, we produced a booklet that focused on the specific issue of medicines and older people. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that drew together the available evidence and made recommendations on how to improve older people's medicine taking.
	Within that, we set a specific milestone on medication reviews. We recognised that the more medicines people take, the more likely they are to experience difficulties, so the scheme had two elements. First, by 2002, all people aged 75 and over were expected to have medicine reviews at least annually, and, secondly, those taking four or more medicines were to be reviewed at least every six months. Although it was largely for the NHS, working with other stakeholders locally, to implement the NSF on older people, we have nationally supported the improvement of medicine-taking in several ways. Before the publication of the NSF, medication reviews were not systematically undertaken or recorded.
	Let me outline several of the measures that we have taken to support the policy. We have supported several primary care trusts to identify what works best and to share that learning with others through the national medicines management collaborative. About half of PCTs have participated in that programme to implement local medicine management schemes so that people get more help in using their medicines from not only their GPs, but pharmacists and others.
	One of the measures used for assessing improvement was the proportion of people aged over 65 who were on four or more regular medicines and had received a documented medication review in the past 12 months. There was a significant increase in activity and, in some cases, the reported rate of reviews more than doubled.
	Another measure was the percentage of patients in care homes who had had a documented review of their medicines in the past year. I am aware that some people believe that people in care homes do not have their medicines reviewed regularly, or sufficiently regularly, but the data from the collaborative work showed that the situation was slightly different. The increase in activity for patients in care homes was similar to that for those living at home, although the two groups had slightly different starting positions. The extent of patient involvement in medication reviews was measured for PCTs in wave 4 of the programme. It increased from 22 per cent. to 62 per cent. in a single year.
	After drawing on this learning, guidance on medication reviews was widely disseminated through "Room for Review: A guide to medication review", which was published by medicines partnership in conjunction with the national medicines management collaborative in 2002. The document set out a framework on how medication reviews should work, together with supporting tools and advice for managers and health care professionals.
	Two years later, medicines partnership commissioned an evaluation of the impact of "Room for Review", first to determine the extent to which the guidance had been adopted by PCTs and, secondly, to assess the experience and opinions of a sample of patients who had had a medication review. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the original plan was to publish both parts of the evaluation together. However, there were unexpected delays in publishing the part involving patients because of the two practical issues—the need to obtain ethics committee approval and the need to identify a suitable sample of patients through GPs. Medicines partnership did not wish to withhold the findings, so it went ahead and disseminated the survey of PCTs in March 2005. Part two was published yesterday.
	I am glad that I have helped to ensure that Christmas has come early for the hon. Gentleman. From the survey of PCTs undertaken in 2004, we know that the majority of PCTs had a written strategy and that more than 60 per cent. of them had agreed local guidelines. About 45 per cent. of the PCTs that responded to that survey indicated that they were achieving or likely to achieve the older people's NSF target. Just 30 per cent. of PCTs said they were unlikely to achieve the target. If the survey were carried out now the figures would be very different, and I shall come on to the results of the GP quality and outcomes framework data later. The relationship between the national service framework and the quality and outcomes framework is important. The NSF indicator is still very much in force, but the way in which it has been implemented through the QOF target has become slightly more flexible to make sure that there is local managerial flexibility for doctors who implement it.

Liam Byrne: That may, or may not, appear in the White Paper—time will tell.
	From the medicines partnership evaluation that was published yesterday we know that patients welcome medication reviews. To gain the full benefit, they say that they need to be better prepared for the review. We must ensure that there is shared understanding of the purpose of the review to create an environment in which patients are empowered to ask questions about their medicines. We have taken that on board by supporting the medicines partnership in producing a guide to medicine use reviews, which patients can use to prepare and identify the questions that they want to ask before they consult their pharmacist. Copies will be available by the end of the month.
	We have also commissioned NICE, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, to develop a clinical guideline that sets out best practice in involving patients in decisions about prescribed medicines.
	The hon. Gentleman highlighted the role of the Commission for Social Care Inspection in ensuring that medication reviews were carried out in care homes in accordance with statutory regulations and national minimum standards. Where inspections are uncovering instances of inappropriate or over-prescribing of medicines, enforcement action is being taken. I am aware that in the past the hon. Gentleman raised the specific issue of the inappropriate or over-prescribing of anti-psychotic medicines. These medicines have an important role to play in the management of a range of conditions and they have a good safety record, but it is vital that they are used with care and in appropriate clinical situations. The role of non-pharmacological therapies is considered where that is an appropriate course of action.
	CSCI inspectors routinely check records to ensure that medicines are properly controlled and correctly administered. Where the CSCI finds evidence of over-prescribing or inappropriate administration of medicines, such evidence is reported to the police and the professional bodies of those involved in such activities. The CSCI also employs pharmacist inspectors who can be called on for advice.
	Furthermore, I understand that a report that focuses specifically on the management and administration of medication in care homes and in children's homes is expected to be published by the CSCI early in the new year. That report will be important because it will help to identify in much greater detail how care homes are performing against medication national minimum standards. It will also incorporate an analysis of complaints about medicines that the commission has received from care homes. I know that that will be of great interest to the hon. Gentleman.
	In summary, the milestone in the national service framework for older people raised the profile of the importance of effective medicine-taking, and in particular the benefit of regular medication review. Significant action has been taken by primary care trusts and others to put in place the infrastructure to deliver those medication reviews. From the first year of the new general medical services contract, we can see and celebrate the progress that has been made, with the vast majority of people taking regular medicines.

Paul Burstow: The Minister has been generous with his time. Will he undertake to consider the requests that I made at the end of my remarks, particularly the issue of the clarity of medication reviews, which was identified by medicines partnership in the report that has been available only since yesterday?

Liam Byrne: I shall look into that. There are different types of medication review, and it is for the clinician to determine which is the most appropriate for an individual patient. Sometimes that will involve a face-to-face consultation, but that will not necessarily be the right solution for many patients. I will happily come back to the hon. Gentleman with more detail on that.
	We have seen a great deal of progress since of the advent of the older people's national service framework. It is part of a broad package of improved care for older people that we have seen unfold over the past seven years. That is a reform programme that we intend to continue.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Ten o'clock.